The rumors and news stories have been trickling out in recent days since the former Arkansas Governor announced he will be leaving his radio show this month to pursue other opportunities. Now, at least, it appears Mike Huckabee believes there is an opening in the 2016 GOP field for a strong social conservative to enter the fray.

Report from the Washington Examiner:

He has hosted the “Mike Huckabee Show” on Cumulus Media since April 2012, but said that it takes up to nine hours a day to prepare. “As for the new endeavors, at this time, it would best for me to say, ?Stay tuned!'” he wrote on his Facebook page.

Supporters won’t have to wait long. On Friday, he is participating in a “Pastors and Pews” event in Little Rock, Arkansas, one of several politically-charged gatherings hosted by evangelical political operative David Lane and his American Renewal Project. Huckabee is also giving interviews to political reporters.

Lane told Secrets: “Huckabee is obviously gearing up to run. This is the most aggressive I’ve seen him since 2007.” That year, the former Arkansas governor ran for president and was aided by Lane.

Lane told Secrets that Huckabee plans to participate in four upcoming “Pastors and Pews” events to be held in North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Texas.

The events are aimed at energizing the evangelical base and getting the estimated 40 million churchgoers to register to vote. “This is a sleeping giant if it ever engages,” Lane said.

Huckabee would add a different element to those expected to run in the GOP primary. A long-serving governor, he has strong ties to evangelicals and is also a popular media star.

Huckabee’s biggest selling point may be his credibility on social issues coupled with his media charm. Consider him a cross between Rick Santorum and Chris Christie, only more approachable than either one.

171 COMMENTS

  1. Huckabee could garner a good percentage of Pub votes but Independents, Libertarians, and Dems will avoid him because of the Examiner’s statement: “he has strong ties to evangelicals and is also a popular (FOX) media star”.

  2. As stated in Nate’s article Governor Huckabees biggest asset in my opinion is his credibility among his evangelical audience. As Sam said above however this also brings a down side.

    Unfortunately he has recently decided to lean toward the establishment wing of the party by strongly speaking out against the Tea Party giving any primary challenge to incumbent republicans and has endorsed Senators Graham and McConnell for re-election. In the same vain he has shown no qualms about using his Christian bully pulpit in criticizing Senators Cruz or Lee in the name of the Lord either. Will this stick in the minds of the right if he gets the nomination?

  3. I agree. Huckabee is too identified with the religious right. Also seen as old-line at a time when the public seems to be seeking new faces.

    However, I wouldn’t count him out. Huckabee has a real common touch. It would be interesting to see him run against Biden, since they have similar styles, and would bring “aw shucks” into the political dialogue.

    The fact that he’s being dismissed by the pundits is a major advantage. . .

  4. Nate — will we have elections come 2016, so this post even matters?

    Or, will Obama declare Martial Law prior to 2016, in order to stay in power forever (ala Stalin)?

    Do you think Obama, having tasted the intoxication of absolute power that he feels he has, will let go of it come 2016?

    Or do you think he’ll come up with some fake terrorist attack that will give him the excuse to declare Martial Law, and thus suspend all elections accordingly?

    Thereby, making himself our permanent ruler!

    ————————————————————————————-
    Afterall, as a child, Barry Soetero (now known as Barrack Hussein Obama) scribbled on the steps of his elementary school in USA: “King Obama”. Later, as student in Islam lands, he stated to his fellow students that if given a choice to become a businessman or a soldier or politician, he would chose to be the latter — in his young words: “As president I can get businessmen to build me stuff, and soldiers to fight for me”!

    As the young monster Caligula (called “Little Boots” because as a child he liked to dress as a soldier and make the Roman Legions parade in front of him and do his bidding at the age of seven) grew into adulthood, and became Rome’s most despised tyrant — young Obama (with similar delusions of grandeur) came to power in the USA.
    Now, Barry Soetero’s delusions have become Barrack Hussein’s reality.

    The above info has been verified — here is one of the links (see all 3 parts).

    Part 1:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Og0Mq9Y1PM

    —————————————————————————————

    Don’t know about you — but I’ll bet the farm that unless impeached soon, Barrack Hussein is insane enough to stage another 9/11 to declare himself our ruler past 2016, and then make his kids the next dictators ala North Korea, for decades to come!

    • Oblivious: The Obama people must be jumping for joy whenever you post, looking so ridiculous as to make any Obama-challenging post seem likewise ridiculous.

      You apparently don’t even read your own posts? You claim his name was really “Soetero,” yet you claim he wrote “King Obama”?? It’s not as much fun to refute what you say when you’re busy doing it, yourself.

  5. g. behr — what a kook you are.

    putiing your hand in the sand does not negate what Obama has said!

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Barack_Obama_change_his_name

    “When did Barack Obama change his name from Barry Soetero?

    Answer:
    He did not change his name. Barack Obama has always been Barack Obama. For a brief period of time, he did have a nickname, “Barry” Obama.

    This above answer is not correct in any respect. Obama was adopted by his stepfather, which changed his name to Barry Soetoro. This is the name reflected on his Indonesian school records, as well as; his high school yearbook. By Obama’s own admission he changed his name back in 1982.

    This has generated new claims of Obama’s deceptive nature, for it appears that his selective service record reflects the name Barrack H Obama. Other than the misspelling of his own name, he claims to have registered in 1979 after high school graduation while living in Hawaii. However, registration was not available in 1979, and the misspelled registration shows Sept 1980. This is the time he maintains he was attending Occidental when he was actually a resident of Los Angeles.

    This presents a dilemma in regards to the fact that failure to register was, and still is a serious felony. However, falsifying such a registration by using anything but his lawful name compounds that crime in in multiple ways.

    Failure to register would have made him ineligible for his financial aid in college, which would be a third criminal felony of defrauding the federal government.

    The registration alone would immediately disqualify him from holding any Executive branch position, as well as; nullify his Senate election. This is what some believe to be the true reason he has expended over one and a half million dollars to keep all his records sealed, not because he might fail to meet the Constitutional birth requirements to serve legally as POTUS.

    In fact, the three strike law would qualify him for a legal sentence of life in prison without parole.

    Unfortunately there are no records that would validate or invalidate when or even if he reverted back to his birth name, for he continues to block access to all records that would clarify the answer, even his kindergarten records or blocked by Obama’s legal dreamteam.”

  6. While Huckabee is getting dreamy for the 2016 elections — do you think Obama has built up enough of his DHS army to make a successful coup d’état, via his declaration of Martial Law, to become Dictator of our nation for decades to come (should the 2014 elections go against him as expected)?

    Those with logical minds, please, respond.
    ————————————————————————————

    I’m afraid regardless who wins both houses 2014, Obama has been building his DHS brownshirt army long enough to make his move whenever he feels threatened by any election result, to become dictator via martial law imposed, and implemented by this private army of his.

    Why would the Department of Homeland Security buy nearly One Billion rounds of ammunition (about 3 rounds per US Citizen — or, in other words, their ability to kill every single American (men, women and children combined — totaling 312 million citizens) 3 times over?!

    Why is Obama vetting US Army Generals based on: “Will you fire on Americans at home if the “need” arises?” And the ones saying NO get replaced with his own that say YES?!

    DHS claims for contracting nearly 1,000,000,000 overall (that’s one billion rounds!!!) of ammo, is for practice purposes mostly. However, every single round they are buying is a Hollow Point — the most expensive and devastating bullets that can tear people apart (the reason the Geneva Convention banned such rounds for military use, and only allows FMJ)!

    Full metal jacketed ammo is nearly half the price, and therefore, the one all shooters use to economize the cost when practice shooting. So, if for practice, why hasn’t the DHS bought any FMJ, but only Hollow Points?!

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R — Utah) noted that DHS is using more than 1000 rounds per person MORE than the US Army!: “It is entirely inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition”, he said.

    This POTUS is up to no good, and dark days are coming soon, unless he gets impeached (but where does one find two honest congressmen risking their political careers to do the right thing…and start impeachment proceeding NOW, before it’s too late?!).

    • obvious;

      You asked for my opinion on this subject on a previous thread but I was away on vacation and then my computer locked so I was unable to answer you. My apologies.

      I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories so I would answer no I don’t think this is possible. In fact even getting an idea like this out there could be dangerous. I think President Obama at this stage realizes his support in Congress is draining away and just wants the scandals and the Obamacare failure to go away. Of course he will attempt to salvage his legacy in Obamacare (he doesn’t have anything else) but he will fade into history after his second term is done.

      • Bob,

        I disagree that ideas put forth for debate are dangerous, since it is the cornerstone of western civilization (to question their validity with rigorous logic and arrive at a conclusion that proves them true or false).

        The real danger to intelligent thought is not to permit an idea to be openly debated, but instead declared “dangerous” and, therefore, not allowed for discussion.

        Still interested if you’ll answer — Why does the DHS need such insanely astronomical amounts of ammo for home consumption (it isn’t like they are going to go to Afghanistan to fight there, or likely face crazy muslim terrorist here THAT are MORE than the total number of American citizens (about 312 Million of us), that the DHS will have to fight in our homeland)?

        So, why are DHS stocking up close to 1,000,000,000 hollow point bullets?

        • obvious:

          You misunderstood me. I wasn’t suggesting putting forth a debate was dangerous but basing your theory on here say and sketchy information and then making up embroidered stories to substantiate them is however.

          If you wish to be taken serious in political discussions you should put aside the quixotic claptrap.

          To answer your question on why I believe the DHS is stocking up on ammunition I believe the president unable to past any type of gun control is taking this route instead.

          “To often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”…John F. Kennedy

          • Bob — accusing me of “quixotic claptrap” and then adding your beliefs to counter them, does not make for a sound argument on your part.

            Sounds like you are going the Goethe road — hoping for personal beliefs to be substituted for actual facts, in order to reach a logical conclusion…LOL.

            • Oblivious;

              You originally asked for my opinion on why the DHS is stocking up on ammunition and then when it doesn’t agree with the jackassery in your 6;14 post you accuse me of substituting my own beliefs for actual facts. Make up your mind.

              I believe you have me confused with someone who gives a flying fig if you are insulted by my remarks. If you are insinuating I find engaging a conversation with Goethe more entertaining than with a political pygmy who has a thumbless grasp on what is possible in reality…..Yeah I’ll go with Goethe !

            • Bob: Yes, it is interesting that you and I (and Sam and I, for that matter), can disagree so vehemently about issues, but continue to have respect for one another.

              Oblivious is an interesting case study of someone who is extremely paranoid and delusional on domestic matters, but is inconsistently xenophobic (which seems to be controlled by rationalizing disagreement and unpleasantness regarding what someone else has said). Another interesting point is that he seems to hate everyone in politics, except a certain fetish for Ron Paul, about whom, you are not allowed to disagree on anything. I agree with Ron Paul on most things, but when I disagreed with Paul on one or two issues, Oblivious (aka Surfisher) became somewhat hysterical. His hero worship of Paul is frightening, as if he saw Paul as some kind of Hitler “savior.”

              It has also been interesting how Oblivious has transferred this hero worship to Ron’s son, Rand, even though Rand is a very different character. While I agree with Rand on quite a few things, too, I am somewhat turned off by his tendency to act as a “politician,” who is willing to pander to specific groups, as well as bend his views according to the polls. In instances in which Rand has split with Ron (most notably, Rand’s abandonment of his father during the 2012 campaign, to enhance his own political standing), Oblivious has trouble coping.

              He’s interesting to watch, and somewhat humorous, if you don’t take him too seriously. He is also amusingly easy to coax into a meaningless quibble.

            • Goethe Behr — WOW, way off topic, and worrisome as to you mental state.
              To be so obsessed with me to write short novellas responding to others — seek psychiatric help, kid.

            • Oblivious: Not off-topic at all. It’s the way the thread went.

              And you should be so lucky as have someone obsess about you. In fact, my guess is that lack of anyone caring about you is one of your problems. Try to get out more.

  7. It is asinine to even think of impeaching President Obama no less advocating it. As was shown with President Clinton the Democrats won’t let one of their own go down in disgrace no less bringing impeachment charges against two consecutive Democratic Presidents. And the result of such actions would mean Vice President Biden becoming president. Do we really wish that on the country?

    On the other side of the coin the Vichy republicans running the party believe the Tea Party is more of a threat than Reid, Pelosi, and Obama and are focusing on eliminating losing primaries to the “wacko bird” right. In addition with the paranoid concern of an image problem the RNC is currently experiencing do you really believe they could get a significant number of Congress to go along on this? If the race card was played by the left for much less offenses what do you think would be done for impeachment?

    The republican party is just as open to embrace BIG GOVERNMENT Conservatism when it serves their purpose and as witnessed by it’s defense of immigration reform only supports policies that help the party. We are approaching a point where the lifetime tenure politicians in Washington’s Army of Occupation, shadow government of bureaucracies, czars, NGO’s, government agencies and lobbies are in place to squash the old system of representative government from both parties. They are content with this setup and don’t want to upset the apple cart by going back to following the Constitution.

    • Bob — I totally agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs!

      I disagree with your: “It is asinine to even think of impeaching President Obama no less advocating it.”

      I’d wager that the majority of Americans will sigh in relief, if Obama gets impeached (then, reality will set in and they’ll pray for brainless Biden to go away, too…as you aptly stated).

      However, I agree that the Dems will never allow impeachment.

      But my thought was not the accomplishment, but rather the Proceedings of Impeachment.

      As these proceeding stopped Clinton from doing more damage to the USA, so will they stop Obama (he’ll do what Clinton did, concentrate on saving his political skin, and leave us alone long enough to hopefully recover from his continuous disasters, and the NEW ONES HE’S PLANNED FOR US)!

      If unchecked, Obama will continue to rain ruin on our nation. All we need is breathing room, to survive this POTUS….

      On the “race card” — it has been used already too many times in his favor. Eventually crying “wolf” will get him nowhere. Especially when in 2014 all companies are forced to Obamacare — it is estimated that about 108,000,000 more Americans (on top of the +30,000,000 self-employed that are losing their plans as we speak) will lose their current health plans as employees, when the companies they work for are forced to buy ACA (Abominable Careless Act)! This totals about 140,000,000 citizens getting shafted by Barrack Hussein — that’s well over 1/2 of all WORKING AMERICANS!!!

      You think these people will care about the politically correct idiocy of the “race card” when viewing Obama, then? I’d say they would be asking for a jail card, instead….

      • obvious;

        You talk as if you are carrying a pitchfork leading a mob. The impeachment clause in the Constitution wasn’t meant as a political tool to delay your opponent from implementing his agenda nor to give you “breathing room”. They involve serious charges against the conduct of the President and are not to be taken lightly. Your fitful impulse of what you are suggesting shows arrogance and ignorance toward the Constitution and can not be condoned.

        • Bob: I agree with you. It was sickening to hear all the calls for impeachment of Bush, and now Obama. The parties are just two gangs of thugs, trying to stir up the riffraff, and they’re good at it.

          I hope we get back to sanity someday.

        • Bob, on your post: December 18, 2013 at 12:12 am (too much midnight beer intake on your part to post it?)

          I’m offended by your insults: “You talk as if you are carrying a pitchfork leading a mob…..Your fitful impulse of what you are suggesting shows arrogance and ignorance toward the Constitution and can not be condoned.”
          ————————————————————————

          This statement of yours is, however, correct: “The impeachment clause in the Constitution wasn’t meant as a political tool to delay your opponent from implementing his agenda nor to give you “breathing room”. They involve serious charges against the conduct of the President and are not to be taken lightly”.

          I thought it was self-evident to all, the grievous misconduct of Obama, to start impeachment proceedings — but I guess some need to be reminded of just a few, of his continuous, unconstitutional transgressions.
          —————————————————————————-

          1) Obama pledged he’ll veto NADA if passed. Then, he signs it into Law — the opposite of the verbal contract he made with the American people! This clearly defines him as a perjurer (Clinton got impeached for perjury).
          When challenged in court by a brave pair of news reporters, that it is Unconstitutional for the NADA bill, signed by Obama, to allow American citizens to be whisked away to some military base on mere suspicion that they may be terrorists, not on actual proof, and DISALLOWED due course and representation (against the US Constitution) — and when a Federal Judge hearing the case declared that this NADA Law was constitutionally invalid, and therefore suspended it, what did Obama do?
          Did he go back and say: ” Gee, I made a contract with the American people that this will never happen when I signed NADA, so now I’ll make sure it becomes null and void, for I was fooled into signing it”?
          NO, Obama sicked his lawyers to negate this Federal Judge’s ruling next day, and keep the infamous NADA as the Law under his decree!

          If that’s not enough for impeachment — for a POTUS to swear an Oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution — and then do the exact opposite, destroying part of it with his NADA perfidy, I truly do not know if any of you have a functioning brain not to be able to comprehend this.
          —————————————————————————

          2) Why won’t Obama show his real birth certificate to the American people — but only got his staff to publish a copy that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be fake?!

          We all need to show our original birth certificates (no copies accepted says ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES) — if you want to get a job, or drivers license, or US passport — but Obama refuses to show his Original! Why, if it is legit — after all he got the biggest job in the USA without ever showing his original birth certificate to anyone so far!!!
          Isn’t it about time he showed it to us?! And if continues to refuse it, would that be an impeachable offense, too?

          If he was born in Hawaii, as he claims —he would have given his original birth certificate for all to see its validity by now. That’s called Logic!

          But his constant refusal to do so, and his unconstitutional dictates to seal all his school and travel records, LOGICALLY dictate that he has something to hide!
          If born in Kenya, as most detectives on this case indicate, than Obama cannot be a US president — and not only needs to be impeached, but imprisoned for life without parole!
          ————————————————————————

          3) Add to all of the above Obama’s desire to have Americans killed on American soil by drones — unfortunately it didn’t pan out for Obama then —it took a 12 hr filibuster by Rand Paul to finally get the White House (not Obama himself) to say: “yeah, OK, we won’t be killing Americans via armed drones on American soil…” That was like pulling teeth to get Obama not kill Americans via armed drones on American soil…for the time being!

          4) Obamacare — forcing people against their will to buy a government mandated product is Unconstitutional (and by Obama making it into law, makes him a Constitution breaker)! Since at his inauguration Obama swore to protect and uphold the Us Constitution, his actions are impeachable for he’s done the exact opposite of the oath he took!

          5) Many, many more Obama transgressions against the American people can be listed — from his anti 2nd Amendment executive orders (unconstitutional since there was never a national crises that demanded such abusive extraordinary actions), to his decision to halt any military support (that was requested) by the US Ambassador in Benghazi, thus directly causing the deaths of these American citizens!
          —————————————————————————–

          Bob — for you to suggest that I “show arrogance and ignorance toward the Constitution and [that] can not be condoned” is the ultimate of asininity.

          It seems that you are condoning that Barack Hussein Obama gets off scot-free, instead of getting impeached for his criminal actions (even if the Dems won’t lett it pass, an Impeachment proceeding against Obama is a MUST — to show that we’ve had enough of crooks on the lose)!

          For you, or anyone else, to suggest that Obama must not be impeached because of in-house politics — I find truly unAmerican, thus disgusting!

  8. The best thing Huckabee has going for him is that he can rally the largest base of the republican party – Christians. However, being republicans, they support candidates based on principal rather than personality. Sure, he’ll draw the angst of the media, God-haters, and the anti-religion crowd…but they’re the vast minority in the country.

    If he produces a principled conservative/libertarian agenda, he’s got a legitimate shot. However, he’s more of a moderate than a libertarian, which may mean he’ll make a big flash, but in the long term when people really start talking principles, he’ll lose out to either a more vicious candidate (like Romney…possibly replaced by Christie) or a more principled candidate (like a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz).

    Any conservative/libertarian candidate who can rally the Christian base will win. Bush and Reagan both showed this to be true. Problem is that outside of them, no candidate has really stirred the Christian base, so they’ve stayed home.

    • Josh — “Any conservative/libertarian candidate who can rally the Christian base will win.” Correct.

      Rand Paul will be able to do this smoothly, without sounding as a religious zealot. Watch this video (Sen. Rand Paul — The “war on Christianity” is being ignored by the mainstream media and the Obama administration).

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

      And watch Rand Paul calmly, and with relaxed precision, destroy on CNN this Obama-loving-ultra-liberal-scumbag-of-an-ugly-and-loud-mouth-TV-bitch on the national calamity that is Obamacare!

      Rand Paul is the one to root for come 2016!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2606881821&feature=iv&src_vid=qVeAqXUILOQ&v=P8ZTIOWa2ys

    • Josh:

      Do you really believe “the media, God haters and anti-religion crowd are the VAST MINORITY in this country” then you haven’t been paying attention to the 2012 election where the deification of government won President Obama a second term.

      Americans today have substituted man for God and whim for values. We as a nation no longer have a government under God but a government is God. It is the Progressives main project to aggrandize government by humanizing it. Government becomes the life that cares, feeds and exhibits concern. the story of the past three decades is not the story of a benevolent government starved for funds by the rich people or fanatical republicans. It is a story of a public sector that has constantly done less with more and a liberalism that has defended the interest of a narrow constituency.To progressive liberals separation between the church and state is paramount.

      • Bob – I support your analyses of the Progressive Americans of today. The 1st Amendment says,”Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of RELIGION, . . .”. Spirituality is somewhat different from Religion – it relies not on a specific Messiah or human teacher or writings about God. The Tao or God and “all that is” in Unconditional Love, should be allowed in our government as well as displays featuring Spirituality. I not sure that Progressives, Liberals, or even Democrats can grasp that.

  9. Bob – yes I do believe they are the vast minority…philosophically. Problem is people don’t get out to vote. They would rather stay home and not vote for a half-conservative allowing a full fledged liberal to get into office.

    Philosophically, America is first Conservative, 2nd Moderate, and I think there’s a tie between liberal and those who don’t know what they believe.

    77% of Americans are against the mandate
    Most Americans were against Obama and the Dems raising taxes
    Majority of Americans didn’t want Obamacare
    Most Americans don’t think being gay is normal, and believe marriage does not include gay people, or polygamists…or mixed species

    The list goes on and on. Problem is people don’t vote, or the vote party lines regardless of views. My father in law would speak of conservative values, and things that republicans were promoting…but would vote democrat. He thought Obamacare was communism, didn’t want it, was disappointed with Obama…but still voted for him.

    If people ever started paying attention and voting their values, not only would it be landslides for a while for republicans…the democratic party would reform. they would have to.

    • Josh;

      But what do you do when you pay attention and your values aren’t reflected in any of the candidates? That is the crux of the problem members of the Tea Party face from the establishment republican wing.

      I have no idea how old you are and how many political cycles you have experienced so it may be difficult for you to gage just what I mean. I’m 66 years old and have had my fill of holding my nose and voting for the worst of two evils hoping they reflect my views. As I have previously stated I got so disgusted with both parties I don’t consider myself a republican anymore but a Conservative. When I get a request for a political donation I have stickers which say “My political donations are going toward Club for Growth Candidates”.

      And yes I have stayed home during the 1976, 1992, and 2000 elections. I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again.

  10. Goethe;

    In regard to your post of 20th December @ 4:38 AM I have neither the patience nor the time to coax Oblivious into “meaningless quibble’s”. I find little enjoyment or purpose in it and have abandoned that trait many years ago.

    • Bob: I agree completely. I don’t “coax” him. I just reply. (Note yesterday’s one word exchanges.). In my experience, if a bully’s attack goes unanswered, he (in this case, we’re assuming. Surfisher/Oblivious is a guy) thinks he has “won,” and just gets more abusive.

      One Achilles heel he has is an absolute lack of sense of humor. Although he is often funny (ludicrous) in spite of himself, so we keep him around for entertainment value.

      Well, that and the fact that he makes the rest of us seem so much more reasonable and thoughtful…

      • Goethe;

        I’ve had the same experience from another person on a political site and I totally agree with your assessment of how to handle a bully. I do think however you have “bully” and extreme “partisan hack” confused. I think of a bully having some sort of power over another person making them cringe every time they hear from them. A political hack is just an arrogant, obstinate person who doesn’t see any tolerance for others views. They also generally insist on having the last word in any conversation. They attempt to philosophize with a hammer.

        The way people determine who won isn’t in who gets the last word or has the best comeback reply. It’s in content of your thoughts and how you express them which is why you and I respect each others post.

        “When you can’t make them see the light make them feel the heat.”. Ronald Reagan

        • Bob: True. But it’s not about getting the last word. It’s about standing up to him. I tried just ignoring him, and he just got more aggressive and abusive. I found that if I dished it out, at some point, he’d back off.

          And I get the difference between a bully and a, well, wingnut. But he’s both. He is particularly abusive of Tess, because he thinks she will be cowered by his testosterone. And when she tried to ignore him, it got worse.

          And, regarding the RR quote, I have used a variation in response to senseless hostility–“all heat and no light.”

          • Goethe Behr — WOW, way off topic, and worrisome as to you mental state.
            To be so obsessed with me to write short novellas — seek psychiatric help, kid.

            • Oblivious: Dude. You even spam your weak responses.

              Now, I’m trying to figure out if the next sound should be “har,” “yuk,” or “pffft.”

  11. Bob – you should write your congressman – senate and representatives. Write the republican and democratic party..regularly. Financially support candidates around the country who do support your values…and write your congressmen that you gave a contribution that would have been theirs if they had supported certain values more. Participate in political discussions as much as possible. Ron Paul may end up being a hero in the long run. His long term, unending, non-stop, never quit, eventually won a political movement and possibly resurrected libertarianism in this country.

    Lastly, and most importantly, pray. This country was founded on the belief that we were founded and established by Divine Providence. If indeed the Divine had a dream, we should remind the Divine, and challenge Him to maintain His cause. I don’t think anyone would disagree that both parties have departed from the founding principles. Benjamin Franklin said it much better than myself at the constitutional convention:

    “Mr. President

    The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

    In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

    To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

    I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-”

    If the nation was founded and established based on answers to petitioned prayer, it will be furthered again by the same…

    I suggest you also join those who are praying. There are churches all around who are doing prayer for the nation. Join them.

    • Josh – I am in total agreement with Franklin’s letter!!! The issue we have devolved to is letting Man’s word filter the Creator’s meaning and feeling when he sparked a little of his energy to create this universe, world, and humankind on this world. Messiahs spoken words were human modified and made into religions for control and personal gain.

      While the TAO (Source’s energy net) is a plasma of unconditional love, as humans and other reasoning, sentient beings in the universe, we have guides in and out carnation specifically tuned to our progress and to help us. If we in fact pray to Source, God, or directly to these evolved souls – for most of us – we are delivered intuitive thoughts of moral reasoning to help us through our incarnations. Some are blessed with gifts more directly tied to the 5th Dimension. Personally I’m blind as a bat and go just on faith.

      The 5th Dimension knows just how fracked up we are and according to Franklin the same as the Continental Congress. I do believe that prayer will work as it must have then to get us to some 230 odd years later of a Democratic Republic. It should work again and get another couple hundred years.

      🙂 🙂

    • Josh:

      Your suggestion concerning contacting my Congressman would have worked at one time in our history….but times have changed. You see if they take my suggestions they would be cut off of funding from the RNC and lobbyist which is considerably more money than I intend to donate. And as for the suggestion of contacting the RNC LOL well……….they seem to think Conservatives are the enemy. My time is to valuable to butt my head against a wall and work in the system. No if I’m going to go door to door or make monetary donations it will be for MY CANDIDATE NOT THE ESTABLISHMENTS.

      Praying? I pray for the direction of the country but the only time I prayed for a politician in the last 25 years was when President Reagan passed away. I have a friend who gets really irritated by that….oh well “Sin-Loi” about that.

      • Josh;

        I enjoy reading American history as it seems you do also. Things may have changed but we as citizens need to understand the circumstances that led to our history and the beliefs of those that formed our nation so that we aren’t bamboozled by appealing but undigested whims and ideas. Enjoy your reading!

        P.S. In my last post the spelling should have been XIn -Loi

      • Bob:

        It does bring up the question if legislators read anything we write anymore. There are so many idiotic “petitions” online that I would just delete them if I were a legislator.

        Besides, I think they only care if there’s a check attached.

        But that does bring up another point: Since nearly all communication (such as this!) is electronic, I’ve heard that you actually CAN have SOME impact if you write a real letter–on paper–and sign it. Even better to hand-write it (if anyone can read your writing)–and a good idea to use a pen to address the envelope.

        One reason that might have some impact is that it’s an oddity. Another is that a legislator might think that so few people do write letters that the one letter may represent a lot of people too lazy to write. And, finally, since kids don’t know what pen and paper are, it would suggest that you’re an old fogey–and old fogeys VOTE.

        I wonder if anyone has done a study on this.

      • Bob and Josh:

        I separated this because it’s a different point.

        It’s my understanding that you can’t really pray for an outcome. That would be a form of religion known as “magic,” in which the actions of humans are purported to force the Great Spirit to do your bidding–such as in voodoo (or “The Force” in Star Wars).

        I think a secondary message of the Job story is that we have no right to ask that God do ANYTHING. As I recall, the Big Guy called Job a worm ( or was it maggot?) for being so presumptuous as even to ask why.

        Of course, people pray to God to kill the other side in a war–and even to beat the other team in sports. But if I were God, I’d break your favorite ballplayer’s leg, in response.

        You can pray to make yourSELF better, because that could be seen as a type of meditation that would make your own spirit more pure. Likewise, there’s some evidence that prayer can have healing power, but again, it’s more about “getting right” than forcing God to cure you.

        I’m not so sure it’s theologically correct to pray to try to change an outcome that is totally in God’s discretion. I mean, as if an all-powerful being wouldn’t already know what you want…

        Perhaps Sam could chime in here.

        • Actually Goethe, i did comment earlier on this thread 12/20 3:34pm MST. I think you nailed it pretty well, i didn’t delineate as deeply on types of prayers but your concept is right on in my opinion. My thoughts are prayers by guides are sent back with thought provoking intuitions that we will need to resolve to learn and grow in Unconditional Love. They may or may not lead us to a solution. We already know the solution going in but an incarnation (movie) memory usually doesn’t include eternal memories.

          As you pointed out negative answers or intuitions are not in any way part of The Tao (or Source). That’s a pure incarnation (human) thing. And I’m not very evolved, cause i have a lot of negative thoughts periodically..

            • Goethe – MST vs EST – l looked in my own emails vice the recorded time on thread (when thread says i post something at 2AM, it’s only midfnite here in Denver (Parker). we are -7Tango vs 0Zula or -5Romeo (N.Y.)

        • Goethe – there are 2 answers to your questions, I don’t mean this in any negative tone, just being straight forward:

          1. Does God answer prayer specifically
          2. Would God answer prayer for America

          For Item 1, my understanding of prayer is biblically based, not based on some logical means or conversations with people. Logic can many times help us figure out things, but God being a person, you cannot use logic to figure out all the ins and outs His will, intentions, character, personality…etc anymore than I could logic personal things like that for any individual. Why do people pray? For Christians it is because in our bible God has been recorded as saying:

          ‘call unto me and I will answer you’ – book of Jeremiah
          ‘ask and you will receive’ – book of Mark

          James (Jesus’ brother) wrote ‘you do not have because you do not ask…you ask and do not receive because you ask amiss that you may spend it on your lusts’

          The bottom line is that we pray because God said He would answer. Whether *you* believe what’s in the bible or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that’s what is in the bible. There is a lot of debate and discussion as to why some people ‘get answers’ (i personally don’t like that terminology, but its what people use), and some don’t. But the bottom line is that God does answer, and is the one who told humanity about praying in the first place.

          For item 2, my perspective is that if God Himself did indeed found and establish America, and God is a person who responds to prayer, then it is reasonable that when this nation has turned from its founding to go back to the author of the nation to maintain His cause. Benjamin Franklin, at least according to that letter, believed in the Christian God, and because of that Franklin believed God would answer. Not only that, Franklin claimed to have seen God answer as further justification to praying.

          Prayer can change you personally and can be cathartic, but for the Christian prayer is interaction God who is a person. Not to get preachy (but you did ask), that’s the whole point of Jesus.

          The bottom line of the reason that God became a man (Jesus) died and rose from the dead is so that the death sentence passed onto mankind through Adam could be lifted, and new life (the same life that Jesus was resurrected with) could be given to every human making those who believe one spirit with God. That’s what’s even more amazing to me is that there is no human administration (church, organization, card to sign..etc) required, only to believe…and that’s between each man and his Maker.

          The 2nd part of that is that God made a contract/covenant available through Jesus.

          He announced that contract to the Jews in the book of Jeremiah saying:

          “I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

          Promising to be their God means He will answer when they call.

          This is why Christians pray and expect answers…because God said to ask Him and expect answers.

          It is not pride, or haughtiness. yes, people do get prideful and haughty and greedy. True also that people don’t always get what they want, the way they want (I think that’s why Garth Brooks wrote ‘unanswered prayers’). But the founding idea behind prayer is that its God’s design.

          • Josh – I apologize if i offended you with my comments about how i believe prayer is answered. I was raised a Christian and do believe that Jesus Christ is a Lord and the greatest Master to visit earth. I believed the Source sparked him fully evolved and sent him to teach us. My biggest issue is the Apostles didn’t start writing about Jesus for more than 80 years after the Crucifixion. Then it was 3 centuries (325) when Constantine pulled together 300 clerics and given the tasks “this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin” and any reference to reincarnation was removed at that time. Note the writings were in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek where translations were often imperfect. The old Testament was written in Old Hebrew with some Aramaic; and until around 900BCE it was all passed word of mouth by Rabbis memorizing the Torah and discussing the Tanakh. In 1604 King James I authorized 47 scholars to translate and put together the KJV IN ENGLISH to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England. Greek and Hebrew were most of the translations. It was completed in 1611.

            My puny references are from a grouping of several Doctorate Psychiatric Hypnotherapists who have over 9000 cases where they have monitored and voice recorded patients to the babies’ womb and into the last day of a previous life. The subject soul leaves the body, is now pure energy,and is greeted (usually) by a loved one or a guide whose job is to do that, (4th dimension), already feeling the Unconditional Love. Next they change vibration as they accelerate towards “the Light” (5th Dimension) and meet more light (pure energy) beings who are more friends, rels, soul group, and their teachers and guides. (now everything is pure Unconditional love). It goes on and on, but these are the souls tasked with guiding us through an incarnation and answering our questions and needs through intuition.(There are some here who can “Channel” or connect with soul to soul communication). I sure ain’t one of ’em.

            These scholars writings.and recordings don’t have the pedigree(?) of a KJV or a catholic Challoner-Douay version, or the Talmud (to Jews Christ is not the Messiah). But under hypnosis, these clients are guided and they grade themselves before their personal council and are given tips to maximize their learning experience and grow their Unconditional Love. What happens in our little town usually are free will choices that got us to “OH,OH”.

            • Sam: My power is out yet again, so I do not have access to research.

              But you bring up a good question for Josh, et al: They rely on the stories of near-death experiences, and the “walk toward the light reports” (like in the movie, Polterguist) to use as objective evidence of an afterlife. But, there are thousands of times more of examples of past-life progressions performed by hypnotists, who peel back before the beginning of this life.

              If “near death” is proof of an afterlife, isn’t “past life” much stronger evidence of a “before life” lived by another person??

            • Goethe – If I understand Biblical Christians, like Josh, they believe that the Word they read is directly inspired by the Source and the words that Jesus spoke (usually in red) are the Sources words direct, as he is the most evolved Son of the Source. But as I discussed in my earlier post – the Words of the Christian Bibles have been tainted by Apostles, Scholars, & Kings. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 4 versions of Jesus’s teaching life. The 10 Commandments were repeated in Old Hebrew for more than 500 years before put to Papyrus. And Moses received them sometime between 1498BCE -1446BCE, and actually received somewhere between 400 & 613 commandments to start the new Hebrew society.

              I just find that religions mean well but are heavily influenced by imperfect humans and for whatever reason changes and embellishment takes place. And what worse the source destroys nothing, is not biased in any way, is instantly forgiving of our poor free will decisions, and The Source actually deplores that we wage war of any type because the Tao is all about unconditional love. Source and our guides allow us to learn emotions and we get ourselves twisted by poor free will decisions. Source or Guides do not control us. We are free energies learning in the Tao.

              NDE’s are the personal experiences when the soul initially believes the human is going to “buy the farm” and exits forthwith. Depending on their beliefs they may encounter Jesus or a super evolved being – most usually the are met by someone they directly know and get to experience the “light” and the unconditional love. Then they are told to go back as their lesson plan is not complete. they never really get the 5th dimension where our souls are pure energies and interacting with guides, council, and our soul group.

              Non-fans of regression hypnotherapy believe that when under hypnosis you are in delusion, fantasy or in a dream. In reality your hypnotherapist takes you to the Theta state and guides you through your regression state. Originally a patient or client was only regressed to past lives (Brian Weiss is the most known for this) and it is believed that most of us have had 10’s, 100’s, maybe 1000’s of past lives. Richard Bach explained it the best i think. His “Messiah” in his book “Illusions” explained it thus, Our lives are like leaving the 5th dimension (Energy Realm) and going to a movie. We insert ourselves into relative time and actually become engrossed, assuming all the parameters. Why do we go to a movie? To learn or to have fun – same with a life.

              Crap – just lost 10 minutes of thots and words!

              Dr. Michael Newton was regressing a patient with a phantom pain issue, went to a previous life connected and then in that life transitioned (died) and started talking about an experience similar to an NDE but then saw the light and went on into the 5th dimension (energy domain) guided by a guide. From there she rested, healed from the life and went to her friends, relatives, and soul group. Newton started a discovery into “life between lives – LBL”. He regressed and monitored over 7000 regressions and the base story was the same – die, propel to the light, rest, heal, reunion with guides-soul group-others, meet with Council for review and self grading, attend classes, participate in training for various “jobs” when done incarnating, study your Akashic record of past lives, prepare for another movie (life), pick out elements like parents, kids, friends (both souls must agree) and a lesson plan. Entering the womb somewhere during 2nd trimester so the brain is developed enough to accept, merge, and adjust.

              The protocol was always almost identical, but did vary occasionally, and all the elements were there but each patient’s/client’s experience was unique to their own soul and eternal life. It doesn’t violate The Tao, Unconditional Love, the existence of any Messiah or highly evolved soul incarnating on earth.

              Many different Psychiatrists have now participated in this research and the protocol is the same with each – an individual relating the same but yet unique experience according to their soul evolvement.

              When someone is in Theta hypnosis they are not influenced by their brain thoughts and simply relate to the Dr. what their soul sees and hears through mental communication – 3rd dimension biases and prejudices are, i’m guessing, blocked or our higher consciousness is in control.

              To each their own!!!

            • Sam – not offended at all with anything you stated. Nothing came across as malicious, just as honest opinion. Wouldn’t be offended if it was malicious anyway, if someone gets malicious that’s their problem, not mine.

              I will say though that what you stated about the compilation of the bible is true, I’ve heard similar things before. But none of those things that refute the actual content of what *is* included in the bible, and what *is* stated there. I understand there are things people don’t want to believe, or things that don’t make sense to people so they create their own religion…like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witness..or they start their own Christian sect…like the baptists, pentecostals, methodists…etc. Not all are started by disagreements over doctrine, but some are.

              I realize also that people have had the need to know ‘why’ and have created their own answers based on their own opinions.

              People today have access to greek translations of the bible. The Jewish bible still exists today. There are also the dead sea scrolls, which had some books from the bible. It had almost all of the book of Isaiah, translations have found it to be consistent with today. There’s really little reason to doubt the accuracy of what is written.

              Plus, you are forgetting one big thing. God. If God would go to all the trouble of getting people to write things down, you’d think He’d also be interested in ensuring important stuff got to people. Having things documented is important after all. And also, the bible itself even states that it is God Himself who guides the believer to understanding the truth, not their own personal mental abilities.

              Lastly I will say that scientific method is not a reliable means to determining history. Present function, yes, history of present function, no. Because when it comes to using the scientific method to determine the history of the universe, you can’t even get close to an educated guess, its more of a speculated guess that seems to be valid if you can get people on your speculative wagon.

              Doing hypnosis on people may raise a lot of questions, but doesn’t really refute, or point to anything specific. It just raises a lot of questions and the speculative guessers go to work. I don’t mean to be insulting of it. I’ve seen some crazy stuff with hypnosis personally, but I would hardly consider hypnosis to be a reliable source of information when determining the origins and functioning of the universe.

            • Josh – you’re correct, i mean no ill will to any religious writing as long as it is positive and doesn’t violate the Tao of unconditional love (which by the way is why i cant accept certain passages of the Old Testament and many passages of the Koran. The Tao, God is; is all there ever was, is all there is , is all there ever will be. The Tao is the Source’s (God’s) energy network of unconditional love and includes the forming of this and other universes, the big bang of earth, living beings/cells and the eventual collapse of earth. God gave every soul free will after sparking from his energy to go and learn and understand unconditional love. God does not interfere in our decisions or our evolution. Again we have free will. Our guides assist us through thought in picking the right decisions but we still have free will and they or God will not interrupt.

              btw the Dead Sea Scrolls and Writings were discovered between 1946 and 1956 – my Mother starting selling Bibles in 1950 and the latest version she gave me included the Scrolls between Testaments. Also words in that timeframe did not mean the same as now and other languages have words that cannot even be interpreted correctly using a phrase vice a word.

              The recorded word of a soul in Theta state hypnosis is what i trust over any other writing, especially when it is unique to a Energy Realm experience.

              Namaste

            • Josh: You have combined Sam’s comments with mine, so I’ll answer your responses to my point.

              You note that various sects have broken away because they disagreed with someone else’s interpretation of the bible. That is EXACTLY what I was saying. It’s all human error in reading the bible–and yet, every sect CLAIMS to know the absolute truth. And, of course, as Sam suggested, if the words were not written down until many decades later, how could they possibly be the same words. Haven’t you ever played the game “telephone,” in which a line of people are asked to repeat the SAME phrase one to the next, and at the end, there is usually NO similarity between the beginning phrase and what we find at the end.

              What I object to is when people claim the KNOW the ABSOLUTE truth, and EVERYBODY else is wrong.

              I prefer to believe I am part right and part wrong–but so are you.

              And when I wrote about past life regression, I KNEW that I should not have mentioned that it is performed with hypnosis, so you could whip that poor pony. My REAL point was that there are thousands of times as many past life regressions (PLR) as near death experiences (NDE), and if you want to use NDE as justification for believing in an afterlife, then there are thousands of times as many reasons to believe in reincarnation, because of PLR.

              And, here’s the thing–there have been many examples of knowledge that ONLY the dead person could have known–as well as many current ailments that can be explained when the dead person’s life is examined.

              I have my own theories about how these things might occur, so yes, I am skeptical of reincarnation. But I am even more skeptical of afterlife (after just one life), and I think there is much more reason to believe in the former than the latter.

              You can believe anything you want, and I’m not saying any of these things are impossible, but I get sick of those who claim to have an exclusive deed to the Truth, and everyone else is wrong. Hell, I even think Sam makes sense 🙂

            • Goethe – Domo Arigato, danke schoen, gracias, grazie, merci, thank you. i’ve read many, many books on LBL & past and future lives, been to psychics, intuitives, channelers, studied Jerry and Esther Hicks w/ Abraham, read and saw The Secret; and would give either one of my nuts (now worthless) to be regressively hypnotised to the Theta level to experience for myself an LBL. No such luck, this analytical mind will never relax enough to go under. I simply go on faith and a strong belief about the 5th dimension (or pure energy domain)..

          • Josh: You mentioned only two options–that is, either what is logical versus what is in the bible. But there are other variables, ranging from whether man correctly “divined” the truth to write it to the fact that you, as a human, are flawed, and are only interpreting what is written. So aside from the other variables, you have human error in both writing and reading. The latter is shown in the wide divergence of interpretation of the Word among the many sects, from Catholic to Adventist to Mormon to Baptist to Christian Scientist an many more–ALL claiming to have total an exclusive claim to the truth.

            As for “answering” prayers, I’m shocked and astounded at you lack of faith and besmirchment of God’s integrity. God answers ALL prayers. It’s just that 50% of the time, the answer is “no.”

            • Goethe – not really sure what point you are trying to make.

              First you say:

              It’s my understanding that you can’t really pray for an outcome. That would be a form of religion known as “magic,” in which the actions of humans are purported to force the Great Spirit to do your bidding–such as in voodoo (or “The Force” in Star Wars).

              Then you say:

              God answers ALL prayers. It’s just that 50% of the time, the answer is “no.”

              Which is it? Can’t pray for an outcome, or God answers all prayers?

              You said both, and they contradict each other.

            • Josh: I can’t believe you didn’t catch the dripping irony in my post.

              First, I thought I was clear that an all-powerful God cannot be controlled or manipulated by the “maggots” that we are.

              Second, I would have thought you would have recognized the famous quote that God answers ALL prayers, but an “answer” is not the same as obeying human whim and fancy.

              And, finally, if God were to grant 50% of all prayers, wouldn’t that be indistinguishable from the law of averages (ie, chaos)?

              I’m not making an argument for atheism. I’m just saying we can change ourSELVES with prayer, but we canNOT change God.

            • Seeing that is was Josh and I who started this praying question let me add my two cents and that is about all I’m qualified for is two cents. It seems I am far less versed in Biblical studies than any of you so please have patience.

              When I pray I usually ask for someone I know to recover from an illness or accident but usually it’s to pray for guidance in making the right decision not for the Lord to take sides in an outcome of any kind.

            • Bob: Strikes me as how it should work. As St. Francis prayed–help me change what I can, accept what I can’t, and the smarts to know the difference. He didn’t pray to smite his enemies.

            • Goethe – not sure where this is going to show up in the conversation stream, so i’ll post what I’m responding to:

              “First, I thought I was clear that an all-powerful God cannot be controlled or manipulated by the “maggots” that we are.

              Second, I would have thought you would have recognized the famous quote that God answers ALL prayers, but an “answer” is not the same as obeying human whim and fancy.

              And, finally, if God were to grant 50% of all prayers, wouldn’t that be indistinguishable from the law of averages (ie, chaos)?

              I’m not making an argument for atheism. I’m just saying we can change ourSELVES with prayer, but we canNOT change God.”

              Bottom line, then explanation…

              Bottom line is that we are not maggots to God, we are very valuable to Him as individuals and because of that (into my 2nd point) we can change God’s mind on things. I don’t get this from logic, but from the bible. The reason that’s important is because that means your reality base is external to your own imagination, and is something that is written down so you know its more than just your ideas. This is why America wrote down the constitution, and why contracts are documented. As for discovering original intent, according to the bible, God Himself is there to guide people to original intent, and when people go crazy with their theology, bible also talks about how they are really just self serving people and easily recognizable.

              Your value to God.

              John 3:16 is a glaringly obvious one. ‘God so loved the world’ There are other not so obvious ones. Jesus told a couple of allegories – one about a man finding a treasure in a field, another about finding a valuable pearl. Both men sold everything they had to get the thing the saw as so valuable. To God, you and I are that treasure and that pearl that he ‘gave His only son’ [back reference to John 3:16] for. And further, Paul wrote how God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. The Jewish tradition and scripture is that Messiah (Jesus) would be called Immanuel (God with us). Jesus Himself also said, if you have seen Me you have seen the Father (God). This all points to the fact that it was really God Himself on the cross going through all that crap, for you, me, and the rest of the world. This hardly says we are maggots to God. I understand if you don’t believe what’s in the bible, what I’m pointing to is that the message in the bible is clear as to your and my value.

              Can we change God’s mind?

              Yes, bottom line, Yes. Has the bible ever recorded an instance of someone changing God’s mind. There are 3 people – Moses, Hezekiah, ‘Daughters of Zelophad’.

              God was angry with the nation of Israel for their idolatry (if you’ve seen 10 Commandments it was the part when Moses came down from the mountain). What wasn’t in the movie is that God told Moses He was going to kill everyone and start over with Moses…I guess like He had with Abraham. Moses changed God’s mind, Israel exists today as a nation. Hezekiah was told by God he was going to die, Hezekiah prayed and God intervened and added 15 years to Hezekiah’s life. God didn’t bring the illness, but didn’t have plans of healing Hezekiah until he prayed. Lastly the ‘daughters of Zelophad’ found that the inheritance laws God had given didn’t cover the case when a man had only daughters. God said, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and turn their father’s inheritance over to them.” God also amended the law to include the situation.

              Bottom line is that we are valuable and can change God’s mind on things. Maybe you don’t believe what’s in the bible, fine, but it is definitely there.

              And Franklin, being a Christian (not a deist) understood God answered prayer, and saw answers. So it is not out of line for us to appeal to Heaven at all times in order for Him to intervene in the affairs of men and do justice. Here are a couple more that should inspire one to pray (that is if you can accept things in the bible as true):

              Isaiah – On your walls, O Jerusalem [could also be any city or nation], I have appointed watchmen;
              All day and all night they will never keep silent.
              You who remind the Lord, take no rest for yourselves;
              And give Him no rest until He establishes
              And makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth.

              Jeremiah – “I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things”

              Daniel – “..the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind,”

              I realize that not everyone accepts what is in the bible as true, what I am pointing to is that this information is there, and is likely the reason Franklin (a Christian, not a deist) wrote:

              “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more *convincing proofs* I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men.”

              Given all these things, we ought to pray for our nation.

            • Josh – As Tess mentioned, Franklin (born a Episcopalian – Catholic Lite) was an avowed Deist who believed Jesus lived as a human and a teacher – but does not believe in the Christian religion. Jefferson and Washington believed the same. “George Washington seems to have held the belief that religion was necessary to induce people to civil behavior. However, in his personal life he embraced Deistic beliefs.” – http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm . Jefferson was very against Religion and many passages of the Bible; to the extent he cut out violent passages and parts that he felt were degrading to God.

              I feel much the same way, except i believe Jesus was sparked evolved and more of the “All That Is” inherent vice learned. But religious, vs spiritual writings, were remembered and written by man and often for power and control to believe as the writers or evil will befall.

              As Goethe says, my assertion too, “my assertion that the “power of prayer” is to change the people who pray, not to trick God into doing their bidding”.

              The important thing is that You and Tess and millions of Americans believe in Providence and most in teachings of Jesus – bless you and …

              Merry Christmas and a joyful New Year!!!

            • Sam – one of the things I have begun to realize after time and again seeing the history revisionists go back and redefine what has been previously held as historically accurate is….it seems the farther we get from the past, the more we know about it. It would seem to me that the people of those times would have known whether the founders were deists or not.

              God is a person, which is why prayer is simply asking a person to do something, not trying to trick anyone into doing anything.

              One other thing I’ve learned is that if a person has to make derogatory statements about someone else’s belief in order to support their own, it usually means they know they don’t really have much of a ground to stand on for their own personal belief, so they try to insult yours to make it seem like less. Saying prayer is trying to ‘trick God’ is derogatory, not necessarily malicious, but still insulting.

              Not offended, I understand the lack of understanding, and that your view of reality would cause you to think that way because you don’t see the relational aspect of prayer because you don’t believe it exists on a person to person (God to man) level.

              Jefferson was not against religion enough that he sponsored using government money to pay for a priest and help build a church for an indian tribe, here is an excerpt from that treaty:

              “And whereas, the greater part of the said [Kaskaskia] tribe have been baptised [sic] and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”

              People have the need to redefine the values of America and the founding principles. I understand that, it makes them feel more legitimate, and some it furthers their unusual cause, but doesn’t mean their assertions are accurate.

            • Josh: I think you confused Sam and me again (oh, wait, Oblivious thinks Sam and I are the same person, doesn’t he?).

              Anyway, this does bring up an issue that is more appropriate in this blog, and that is, why on EARTH do we make the earthly riches of the churches tax free? Isn’t that a direct subsidy? And isn’t that actually de facto “establishment” of religion?

              Seems to me, all churches should be taxed on their entire income–especially income that comes from investments and related businesses–and then let them deduct whatever they can prove that they do charitably.

              I would think that that is something that Sam, Bob, Billy, and even Surfisher would agree with me on.

            • Josh – As Goethe said we believe you might have confused Goethe and my responses.
              I would never belittle anyone beliefs because i believe that all paths lead HOME (Heaven, Energy realm, 5th Dimension, whatever one would call it) – Everyone, even Atheists should be in believe in something or they would just roll over and “buy the farm”.
              As I mentioned to Tess, i am not a debater, i lack the skills and patience. I am an of a opinion in,which almost everything i think of can be changed with the exception of Spirituality – i have spent too many years studying, discussing, and visiting Chanellers – i could have a degree in Spirituality but not not Theology..

              But i do respect all other’s religion or spirituality, It is disappointing if someone supports any negative aspects. The Source is only concerned how much “we” have learned about Unconditional Love. There is no right or wrong, we simply make poor free will choices and must return to learn a lesson in a different manner.

              The Source “IS” – not a person but omnipotent, created this and other universes, the source of all energy, is a plasma of unconditional love and exists in each and every one of us through our unique soul that was originally sparked from his plasma. The Source does not interfere in our lives but there are millions on guides, teachers, and angels to help us through our incarnations and we all on the evolvement path to fully envelop unconditional love. Prayer, as Goethe says, is to ask for guidance – from our guides and teachers. not for personal gain or some material benefit. If we ask to change something or someone, the guides responsible for that person can try and deliver intuitions, but ultimately that person has free will (granted by the Source) and will act as they see fit.

              “People have the need to redefine the values of America and the founding principles. I understand that, it makes them feel more legitimate, and some it furthers their unusual cause, but doesn’t mean their assertions are accurate.”

              Josh – I assume you are talking about yourself. Concerning Jefferson, He did not believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ or a Messiah :
              “In a letter to Benjamin Rush dated April 21, 1803 Jefferson wrote, “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”

              Jefferson went on to write in this same letter, “Jews. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious. He” (Jesus) “corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.”

              Thomas Jefferson’s Deistic mind would not let him accept the Biblical Book of Revelations. According to Charles B. Sanford’s book THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, Jefferson described the Book of Revelation as, “. . . merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.”

              In fact, Jefferson thought the Bible to be so violent and degrading to the image of God and to the true teachings of Jesus he literally cut and pasted the gospels, removing reference to supernatural assertions such as the virgin birth and the resurrection, and came up with what he called THE LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH, but is now more commonly referred to as THE JEFFERSON BIBLE. This treatment Jefferson gave to the Christian scriptures demonstrates his rejection of the claim that they are divinely inspired.” http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm

              GOETHE – yes i agree that Church’s should pay taxes, If their tax bill can be shown that their donations to the poor or in need of medical attention is equal then they would be exempt.

            • Sam: I hope I wasn’t “belittling” Josh’s beliefs. It’s just hard for me to read someone saying the way they believe is the absolute truth, and everyone else is wrong. Because no two people believe the same things, and while what we believe seems unavoidable to us, if people even within the same sect were to get into it, at some point, they’d see that even they don’t buy into the other’s belief system absolutely.

              I had 12 years of Catholic school catechism plus four college courses in religion. And I have listened interestedly for decades since then.

              There’s an old joke about St. Peter giving Joe (a new arrival) a tour of heaven. As they walk down the hall, Joe sees a room in which everyone is eating food like BLTs, ham steak, and pork rinds. Joe asks about it, and St. Peter says that room is full of Jews, who could not eat pork while they lived, but they can now.

              Passing the next room, he saw people getting drunk and rowdy. St. Pete explained that they were Muslims in life. The next room had wild dancing, and St. Pete said they were Baptists, and on they went.

              But then, St. Pete put his finger to his lips and they tip-toed past the next room. After they passed, Joe asked what that was about. St. Pete says, “those are Catholics–they think they’re the only ones up here.”

              I never bought into Catholicism, and I became firmly skeptical of those who claim to have full title to the truth when a nun told my young self that my mother was going to hell because she was a Lutheran. Since there was no way that could be true, why should I believe any of it?

              Back to Josh, he cites 1 Kings 17 as “proof” that people can push God around. It’s about Elijah the Tishbite (sic), who said, “As surely as the Lord lives, no rain or dew will fall during the next few years unless–I–command it.”

              This is exactly the point of our discussion. Elijah COMMANDED God to stop the rain. I don’t believe that’s how it really works, but to each, his own.

            • Goethe – i have never doubted you feel as i do – that each are entitled and should have their own beliefs and faith. I like your St. Peter humor, i’ve heard similar. Because the Source resides in our soul, if we think we are pushing God around, we are actually pushing our selves around. God is a person only as the Source exists in everything in the Universe and is omnipotent.

              We’re saying the same thing about churches and religious groups. they are supposed to be non-profitable – there should be a limit on paid salaries and material gain and walk their “giving” back till their taxes equal zero. After all the government shouldn’t get their money, the “people” should.. The Gov never got “our” money until 1913.

            • Sam: Regarding taxing the churches, I just don’t believe in churches being tax-exempt. Only their good deeds should be exempted–as filed deductions. Churches are corporations, and they should be treated as corporations. Make them prove that they are making good use of their income. Let them file deductions to their tax bill.

              We are always hearing about “charities” that do very little charity–but keep 90% of what they collect for themselves. We see churches packed with gold, with real estate, buildings, and even businesses they can shelter.

              I still believe that subsidizing churches by letting them go automatically tax-free is unconstitutional “establishment” of religion, and churches do claim that being taxed would destroy their “establishment.”

            • Josh…religion has been a controversial subject since Martin Luther nailed his thesis on the door of the Catholic Church in 1517. As for our American forefathers, we have to remember that from 1610 or so until after the Revolution, up to about 1781, we were an English Colony under the rule of the British crown and the Evangelical Church of England. Ownership of land came mainly from grants from the Crown. Men who chose to be active in local governing withheld their true religious affiliations out of fear.

              What men say for public consumption is not always their true beliefs. Of particular interest to historians are Jefferson’s views on the separation of church and state, and the inconsistency between his well-documented belief in individual liberty and his status as a slave owner. His views on Native Americans, African-Americans, and women are considered at odds with the principle of universal equality he claimed in the Declaration to be “self-evident. The human element, I guess.

              In no way, do I mean to undermine your beliefs. To me, that is the beauty of being an American, we can say and believe what comforts us most. Just as I enjoy reading Sam’s post on Spirituality…something beautiful there even if I can’t comprehend all of it.

            • Tess – thank you! I, as you, do not mean to belittle any ones faith or beliefs, I only explain why I believe as I do. If my explanation encourages anyone to expand on their spirituality or mysteries of Heaven, i am pleased. That is how i began some forty years ago (in my 30’s).
              A Book I recently found, written by a regression therapist is nurturing, loving, and has numerous related recordings of past lives and between lives, It is softer than my “bibles” by Dr. Michael Newton. It also has the first and only memory that I’ve seen of a life in Jesus’s time.
              If you’re interested: “Bringing Your Soul to Light” by Dr. Linda Backman – Llewellyn Publisher. Google and it has a URL

            • Goethe and Sam – not confusing the 2 conversations, they just have similar subjects and similar answers, plus I know you read more than one message stream.

              Goethe – you pointed the the crux of the disagreement – ‘you just don’t believe it works that way.’ Its not that I don’t have a reason, or supporting evidence for why I believe what I believe, you just don’t agree. That’s fine.

              I’m not claiming to know *everything* but there are some things I do know. You may not agree with me, but I assure you I am right about this….that God is a person who answers the prayers of people, because people are important to Him. He does not answer our every whim, but like a good parent, He knows when to say yes, and when to say no.

              Elijah the Tishbite is a good example of ‘delegated authority’ – If you look at that text you quoted, it was not God that Elijah was commanding it was the skies…God agreed. Joshua is another example, who commanded the moon and the sun not to move for a day, and they didn’t.

              But also understand this, God makes contracts/covenants with men. A covenant is a party between at least 2 where each are agreeing to something. For each to ask the other to fulfill their part of the covenant/contract is not unreasonable. The covenant of Christ was God initiated, it was His idea.

              Make no mistake, God is not mocked, and won’t be taken advantage of. He is God after all.

              To pray for a nation, the best balanced prayer I can think of for a person to pray is to lay out all the crap they see before God and ask Him to fix it. And also ask Him to teach them if they are just seeing things wrong. After all who wants to pray for something to stop, that God approving of?

              Sam – my responses to you are simple disagreement about what is real. That God is a person, reachable, tangible, Spirit, life, truth, reality, the entrance into everything good, the exit from everything that isn’t, source, provision, wisdom, strength, no beginning, no end….everything Good and everything Perfect.

              I assure you i am not wrong that is a person, an unique individual unlike anything else. Who can be approached in a personal way, and does respond to personal inquiries….personally.

              Can people be greedy and manipulative in their prayers? Yes, but God likely doesn’t answer…unless its in His interest to do so. The book of Numbers 22-24 shows an interesting story about God working with a greedy medium called on by a king to curse the nation of Israel when they were leaving Egypt on their way to Palestine.

              Mostly, prayer is a form of adoration and worship and praise, because you see God as someone who cares, and is able to do what you are asking. You may not always know what He is willing to do, but you can bless God by seeking Him to do something with the heart attitude that God is good.

              We can agree to disagree.

            • For tax exempt, you should look at the reasons why any organization would be considered tax exempt, and equally apply. For the most part, religious institutions are given tax exempt status because they benefit the community and are not ‘for profit’ entities.

              What is unfortunately happening today though is that free exercise of religion is being infringed because of their tax exempt status. Religion speaks to morality. Our moralities are the foundations of our political beliefs and stances. Since religion speaks to these moralities, it is really impossible for them *not* to speak to politics.

              Today, churches are threatened with getting too involved in politics…well, only those churches which are against abortion, redefining marriage, socialism…etc. Churches which are for these things, really don’t have much to fear.

              Churches should be tax exempt because of their benefit to society. For example, the police in my city gave a report to my church which showed the effects of their outreaches on crime…in some cases crime dropped by 80%. They also built a center which gives free dental, auto, medical, tutoring, in the worst part of the city. The way the found the land was to go to the intersection of the city which had the highest crime rate and build an outreach center. Being an outreach center, instead of another church, they work with the local churches in the area and there isn’t competition…well, its less anyway.

              But given the militant nature of progressives of today (the attacks against Phil Robertson are good examples), it probably would be best to end tax exempt status. The church will stop curbing its speech and start saying things that need to be said, and be an even greater impact on society.

              So, they should be tax exempt, but given the militant nature of some, it might be best to take away tax exempt status.

      • Bob — you still have not responded to this post, why the reluctance?
        When has asking for Justice and Liberty for All become “quixotic claptrap” for you?

        Your vaunted political analysis prowess, that you claim to be reality, has failed to take into consideration that Obama is like no other US president.
        Your standardization of political analysis on Us presidents is based on the the premise that all were Americans and cared for America (regardless how misguided their consequent actions once elected might have been).
        Obama does not fit that category — if American born, he has yet to verify it, if Kenyan born (as most have deduced) he is an Usurper (regardless, so far he is the only US president that has refused, and has even sealed, all his records so no American can see them)! Obama has displayed his hatred towards America — calling in his early years the US Constitution to be an outdated Colonist Document, in need of a change (that is easily verifiable in his own writings)! Therefore, by your inability to see this, all your conclusions about what this anti-American Obama may, or may not do, are based on fallacious premises, thus suspect of being valid.
        ——————————————————————————–

        So once more, care to respond?

        Bob, on your post: December 18, 2013 at 12:12 am (too much midnight beer intake on your part to post it?)

        I’m offended by your insults: “You talk as if you are carrying a pitchfork leading a mob…..Your fitful impulse of what you are suggesting shows arrogance and ignorance toward the Constitution and can not be condoned.”
        ————————————————————————

        This statement of yours is, however, correct: “The impeachment clause in the Constitution wasn’t meant as a political tool to delay your opponent from implementing his agenda nor to give you “breathing room”. They involve serious charges against the conduct of the President and are not to be taken lightly”.

        I thought it was self-evident to all, the grievous misconduct of Obama, to start impeachment proceedings — but I guess some need to be reminded of just a few, of his continuous, unconstitutional transgressions.
        —————————————————————————-

        1) Obama pledged he’ll veto NADA if passed. Then, he signs it into Law — the opposite of the verbal contract he made with the American people! This clearly defines him as a perjurer (Clinton got impeached for perjury).
        When challenged in court by a brave pair of news reporters, that it is Unconstitutional for the NADA bill, signed by Obama, to allow American citizens to be whisked away to some military base on mere suspicion that they may be terrorists, not on actual proof, and DISALLOWED due course and representation (against the US Constitution) — and when a Federal Judge hearing the case declared that this NADA Law was constitutionally invalid, and therefore suspended it, what did Obama do?
        Did he go back and say: ” Gee, I made a contract with the American people that this will never happen when I signed NADA, so now I’ll make sure it becomes null and void, for I was fooled into signing it”?
        NO, Obama sicked his lawyers to negate this Federal Judge’s ruling next day, and keep the infamous NADA as the Law under his decree!

        If that’s not enough for impeachment — for a POTUS to swear an Oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution — and then do the exact opposite, destroying part of it with his NADA perfidy, I truly do not know if any of you have a functioning brain not to be able to comprehend this.
        —————————————————————————

        2) Why won’t Obama show his real birth certificate to the American people — but only got his staff to publish a copy that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be fake?!

        We all need to show our original birth certificates (no copies accepted says ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES) — if you want to get a job, or drivers license, or US passport — but Obama refuses to show his Original! Why, if it is legit — after all he got the biggest job in the USA without ever showing his original birth certificate to anyone so far!!!
        Isn’t it about time he showed it to us?! And if continues to refuse it, would that be an impeachable offense, too?

        If he was born in Hawaii, as he claims —he would have given his original birth certificate for all to see its validity by now. That’s called Logic!

        But his constant refusal to do so, and his unconstitutional dictates to seal all his school and travel records, LOGICALLY dictate that he has something to hide!
        If born in Kenya, as most detectives on this case indicate, than Obama cannot be a US president — and not only needs to be impeached, but imprisoned for life without parole!
        ————————————————————————

        3) Add to all of the above Obama’s desire to have Americans killed on American soil by drones — unfortunately it didn’t pan out for Obama then —it took a 12 hr filibuster by Rand Paul to finally get the White House (not Obama himself) to say: “yeah, OK, we won’t be killing Americans via armed drones on American soil…” That was like pulling teeth to get Obama not kill Americans via armed drones on American soil…for the time being!

        4) Obamacare — forcing people against their will to buy a government mandated product is Unconstitutional (and by Obama making it into law, makes him a Constitution breaker)! Since at his inauguration Obama swore to protect and uphold the Us Constitution, his actions are impeachable for he’s done the exact opposite of the oath he took!

        5) Many, many more Obama transgressions against the American people can be listed — from his anti 2nd Amendment executive orders (unconstitutional since there was never a national crises that demanded such abusive extraordinary actions), to his decision to halt any military support (that was requested) by the US Ambassador in Benghazi, thus directly causing the deaths of these American citizens!
        —————————————————————————–

        Bob — for you to suggest that I “show arrogance and ignorance toward the Constitution and [that] can not be condoned” is the ultimate of asininity.

        It seems that you are condoning that Barack Hussein Obama gets off scot-free, instead of getting impeached for his criminal actions (even if the Dems won’t lett it pass, an Impeachment proceeding against Obama is a MUST — to show that we’ve had enough of crooks on the lose)!

        For you, or anyone else, to suggest that Obama must not be impeached because of in-house politics — I find truly unAmerican, thus disgusting!

        • Show of hands, please. Did ANYONE read Oblivious’ latest voluminous quixotic claptrap?

          I’m sure Bob didn’t, cuz he says he doesn’t have time for nonsense.

          But really, Oblivious, I’m sure for 100% of the readers, your verbal “wallpaper” really wasn’t worth bothering with. That is, as they say, “TL;dr”–too long, didn’t read.

        • oblivious:

          If you re-read your grandiose drivel it continues on the same preposterous path of leading the towns people with a pitchfork to the castle. If I remember right you even suggested America would be willing to impeach Vice President Biden rather than make him President. IF THAT ISN’T RECKLESSNESS MASKED AS RIGHTOUSNESS I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS! You aren’t asking for “justice and liberty” you’re asking for his head on a spike.

          HERE’S REALITY NOT YOUR SANITIZED CONCEPT OF LIBERTY……We have just recovered from a shutdown that not only split the republican party but gave the party a black eye that only the failure of Obamacare helped heal somewhat. ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS CAME OUT IN MASS TO CONDEMN THE TEA PARTY AND THEIR LEADERSHIP DURING THIS SHUTDOWN. I really don’t see where you expect to get a majority of republicans to throw themselves on their swords for impeachment hearings especially with a mid-term election coming up. Then you add YOUR BIRTHER ARGUEMENT and an attempt to IMPEACH TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS IN A ROW and you’ll be laughed in your face.It has nothing to do with any premise that I believe all American presidents are looking out for America it has to do with what is possible……..and what is logical.

          You want to throw someone out throw out republican leadership and establishment republicans that sits on their hands and let the President roll the Constitution. Throw out the republican members who weren’t able to get any results from any of the Congressional scandal investigations.

          IT IS REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP AND THE VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION OF CONGRESS THAT LET THIS HAPPEN. STOP HOLDING FORTH THE VIEW THAT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO PICK UP A TURD BY THE CLEAN SIDE !

          • Bob – Isn’t it a shame that Pubs have no balls (or ovaries) and won’t stand up for the Party and declare that Cruz was “right on” by simply asking for a delay in DisasterCare. Instead the Rino’s want to destroy the Tea Party. There might be some Pubs as well as Dems who lose their jobs come Nov 2014

          • Bob: I guess I was wrong. I didn’t think ANYONE would bother to read Oblivious’ drivel.

            Anyway, you’re making one argument that is wasted. Oblivious hates Republicans, too, so he doesn’t care if Repulicans lose. He only hero worships (or just worships?) Ron Paul, and accepts anything Paul says without question. And now, he’s trying to worship Rand in the same way. I look forward to a point where Ron and Rand disagree (such as when Rand endorsed Romney while his dad was still in the race last year. But, anyway, Oblivious only wants Ron or Rand to run the country, and he would love to have the legislature and courts disappear.

            Secondly, you missed the idiocy of impeaching both Obama and Biden–that would make Nancy Pelosi president. The irony of that being the logical result of Oblivious’ idiocy is truly delicious.

            • Goethe:

              Yeah well I figured I owed one last reply to his post but I know his kind he’ll still pizz and moan because it isn’t the answer he wants to hear. That’s the end of that topic discussion as far as I’m concerned.

              LMAO…you know I never even thought that far down the food chain to Pelosi.

              take care !

            • Oblivious: You’re the only one who had to his first name on here, since you had lost all credibility–and “Oops! You’ve done it again” (with apologies to the significantly more stable than you, Britney Spears).

              Anyway, anybody who’s been on here for any length of time will remember the voluminous and vociferous disagreements Bob and I have had. The only thing he and I seem to agree on is that you are seriously neurotic. I thank you for that opportunity to agree with Bobbo on something.

          • Bob — so you fault me for having principles that I’ll never back of (since only an UNCOMPROMISING STANCE on Principles guarantees our Constitutional Rights), while I fault you for replacing yours for what’s an “acceptable” replacement of all principles in today’s’ world.

            I do feel sorry for your kind — trying to brainwash the people by saying: “Give up some of your principles today, because they are unrealistic at this time.” What follows next IDIOT?

            More, and more principles get negotiated away — till NONE are left. That’s called Logic, but you would not understand it, since you are nothing but a political hack!

            Shame on you ( and your preposterous post that I’m leading the towns people with a pitchfork to the castle — while in reality it is you, and your kind of sophists, that are pitching forks on the path of destroying our nation by trying to portray that ALL principles are to be replaced with “political reality”)!

    • Josh…Our constitution and our country was not founded or established by Divine Providence. The majority of the men writing our constitution were Deist. (John Jay was a known exception). No where in our constitution will you find the word “God”. The word is “Creator”, used to include all people, all faiths, and,yes, all atheists. Ben Franklin’s writings, are a bit like bible verses…the interpretation lies with the reader. Benjamin Franklin was not a pious man, well known for drinking and womanizing. His marriage was common law (to Deborah Rogers) and produced illiegimate children. Discount his moral faults and therein lies a total genius He was an inventor. First in my mind is the Franklin stove which kept the American people warm through the 1930’s, the first fire department, the first musical instrument “born” in America, and the “Pay It Forward” philosophy which is still popular in the South

      I am a person of faith…I believe you are a person of faith and that is the reason our government should stay neutral on religion and look after the needs of all American citizens. I read James 4:3 to say “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions”. Very clear “No” to me. The quote I use often is: John 15:7 “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you”. I interpret this as He will do for me what is best for me.

      .

  12. Seems the self-professed political gurus here (Lil’ Bob and his sidekick Goethe Bore) are taking the low road by justifying the elimination of all principles for what they consider “realism” — therefore the only road, according to them, is an ever downward spiral until we eventually become subjects to a Dictatorial State.

    How do these two (Lil’ Bob and his sidekick Goethe Bore) arrive at such disastrous to the American people complicity?

    Answer: because they’ve become despicable cynics.

    These types are no longer seeing America as the extraordinary free nation it used to be when the US Constitution was followed. Instead, they are willing to compromise our constitutional rights for the sake of today’s “reality” — according to them, those in power that SWORE to uphold the US Constitution, and have DISPLAYED TOTAL DISREGARD towards it, thus making them OATH-BREAKERS, should not be impeached.

    Why — because these kooks say it is unrealistic!

    What happens to the principles our Nation was built upon?!

    Answer: The NEW political mechanism is to NEGOTIATE a compromise to achieve ones political goals.

    What is the LOGICAL end result — the total disappearance of ALL principles!

    Here is this VILE process that’s KILLING our Nation:

    Principle A (giving us the most freedoms) is negotiated to reach a compromise (creating a new principle B…where some freedoms are allowed)— that all politicians agree to make into Law. Then principle B is compromised to get D, and so forth — until we’ve run out of PRINCIPLES!

    Lil’ Bob and sidekick — are you blind to this, or just stubborn fools, not to see the end result?!

    • Actually, there’s only ONE “self-proclaimed political guru” here–unless you are still trying to claim there are two of you. The rest of us here are skeptical of your self-annointed brilliance and infallibility.

    • Oblivious;

      “Only the broken hearted idealist can become a cynic”…..Mark Clifton

      “Idealism is fine but as it approaches reality the cost become prohibitive.”
      William F. Buckley

      • lil’ bobby,
        so you accept the ideals of the US constitution to be negotiated away by never-ending compromises into nothingness, since that’s today’s political reality?!
        i feel sorry for you on your defeatism — or was that your original goal by posting here, to tell the american people…just give up, for justice and liberty for all ain’t gonna happen according to Bob???
        shame on you!

  13. Josh: This is in response to your 12/23 post at 1:07. I think the system is designed to cut off threads after a certain number of responses. Or maybe my computer is goofy, but it wouldn’t let me reply there. Anyway. . .

    First, my referring to humans as “maggots” was just quoting the bible. In another verse, we are SO important that God has the hairs on our head NUMBERED. My guess is that our parts are numbered so that we may be reassembled, if necessary. In my case, God must be playing “he loves me, he loves me not” with the numbered hairs on my head, but I digress.. . .

    Anyway, the point we are arguing is whether it is appropriate to pray to God to “change His mind.” How, exactly, can an all-knowing being have His mind “changed”? Isn’t it perfect? Isn’t it already aware of what you think and do and what you will think and do, and wouldn’t you think that would all be accounted for in his Plan which you intend to divert?

    And if God is all-powerful, isn’t your impression that you are running your life really an illusion? Isn’t there a verse somewhere that says if God were to stop thinking about you for even a second that you would simply cease to exist?

    But I reviewed the instances of “answered” prayers in the Bible. Nearly all are individual preferences, only related to one person’s outcome. And wouldn’t you think only the “granted” prayers would make it into print??

    How about the guy who refuses to change his socks until his team wins–does that really change the outcome of the game? It sure seems to, like the current commercial in which a guy is invited to watch the game with the gang–even though he is obnoxious–because when he is there, the team wins.

    Most of the instances of prayers being answered are INTERPRETATIONS of events. So in addition to human error in putting the bible to paper, and the current readers, whom you have admitted are often in error–even to the point of starting new sects to accommodate their interpretations–we also have the humans who have interpreted events of their lives, which were then spoken of for decades or more before being written down, and then are subject to your interpretation of what they mean.

    I just don’t see how you can say you have the power to “change” the mind of an all-knowing, all-powerful Supreme Being,who has a perfect mind. And I return to my assertion that the “power of prayer” is to change the people who pray, not to trick God into doing their bidding.

  14. Goethe – the short answer to your question about how you can change God’s mind is that you don’t realize how important you are…that’s why you can see who God is, but not see how He would listen to you, or any human for that matter. We are valuable, important, and significant to God….everybody…even the really really bad people…and sometimes especially the really bad people. Jesus said – it is not for the righteous that I came, but for the sinner.

    i say people can change God’s mind, because there are recorded instances of it happening in the bible. I stated 3.

    Yes, God is all-powerful, yes, God is all knowing, yes God has all authority to do whatever He wants to do. However, it is evident that He only takes that authority so far. He is the one after all who put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the one they were not supposed to eat from) in the garden. This proves He gives free choice to people, and holds them accountable for their actions…eventually.

    Yes, *nearly* all are individual preferences, but then you have people like Elijah. Who prayed and it didn’t rain for 3 1/2 years. James (Jesus brother) wrote about this saying: “The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.”

    As to changing God’s mind, we can change His mind on things because He loves us and values us. Even if He is perfect, He will do things for us because He cares. But He won’t do whatever we ask. Moses is a good example. In one case, Moses changed God’s mind and saved the nation of Israel. But on something else, God said no to Moses. God went so far as to tell Moses, basically, ‘don’t bring this up again, the answer is no.’ – no lightning bolt, no punishment for daring to keep after God, no curse of sickness for Moses’ insolence, just a ‘no’. Jesus asked that He not go to the cross, God obviously said no.

    Yes we *can* change God’s mind because He cares for us and values us, but, yes there are limitations. You have mentioned before (apologies ahead of time if this is too personal) that you have daughters. I would bet that in raising them, there are things they were able to talk you into doing that you thought really didn’t matter much either way. You said no at first, but then they got you to say yes. Then there are other times, where it is likely the answer was no, no matter what.

    It is the same with God. He is a person, not a force, not a doctrine, not a belief, not an unintelligent power, a person. A person so intelligent that He was able to conceive and produce the laws of physics. To look at the universe in advance (like a construction architect) and realize He would need to make something like the atom as a basic building block for everything. And be able to understand how that minute thing would function as a building block for stars, planets, plants, rocks…etc.

    And He made humanity to be like Him. As He stated in Genesis: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

    God made us like Him. Why would He not consider the viewpoint of something He made that was like Himself? He does.

    I’m not meaning to get preachy, but i am explaining the fundamental reasons why people can pray and expect God to respond.

    And also, it goes back to…prayer is what God said to do. Jesus was very clear, as written by John (out of chapters 13-16, a long conversation Jesus had on the night before He was crucified):

    “you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.”

    and also:

    “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

    Why do you think the religious leaders of that day wanted Him out? One reason was He was removing the authoritarian style of religious leadership putting man in direct relationship with God.

    …a relationship where God responds to prayer, and will even go so far as to change His mind for us.

    Prayer can change us, I agree it can be cathartic. But you and I can also change God’s mind on matters, just like a parent will sometimes listen to their children. Maybe they can stay out past curfew this one time. Maybe they can skip homework just tonight. But there’s no way you’re bringing your boyfriend over for a sleepover..that just ain’t happening…

    Remember, Jesus said, that we must accept the kingdom of God like a child. I think this parent/child style relationship is one reason why. Because good parents know when to listen to their children, and when not to.

    We can change God’s mind.

    • Josh: You can have an anthropomorphic God, who is no better than we are (only bigger), reasoning that He created us in His mirror image, with whom we can negotiate–and SURPRISE , for that matter.

      Or you can have an all-powerful, all-knowing being that controls everything and is infinite in every way..

      You really cannot have both.

      After all, if someone is “ALL-knowing,” wouldn’t that also include knowing the future? And if someone is really infinite, isn’t “past” and “future” really a trivial designation that only makes sense to finite, corporeal, temporal beings?

      • Goethe – remember, God is a person, not a belief system, nor a religion, nor a theology. Since God is a person, He cannot be completely defined by imagination. Which is why the ‘either / or’ comparison does not work, can God can be all-knowing, all-powerful, and still answer prayer, make a race of people similar to Himself…etc. If we were talking about a math function, or physics, or chemistry….etc, those types of either or comparisons work, but when it comes to a person it doesn’t work.

        If it did we would have figured out women a long time ago….

        I think one of the benefits of the age of reason is that people have begun to analyze whatever truth they are presented with logically. The unfortunate fallout of the age of reason is that people believe that thought can discover reality. Thought cannot discover reality, any more than you or I could discover the reason that Ford called the car a Mustang by simply thinking about it.

        I believe the age of reason brought about the Protestant Reformation, representative governments, and all kinds of good things. however, reason has its limits, just as faith has its limits. There has to be some balance, a place where we go as far as we can with logic, and then accept on faith. Also times we look critically at what we are believing.

        We must understand that we cannot define reality for ourselves, any more than we can define whether or not the sun is in the sky.

        What we do know is what God has said about Himself in the bible. Is all reality about God contained in the bible, i would be surprised. However, since the bible is from God, the things in there are true, a complete accounting, probably not, but accurate yes.

        And what is found in the bible is that God answers prayer because He cares for us. He will not answer every prayer (so to speak), but He will answer prayer. So we should pray for our nation. This isn’t ‘tricking’ God into doing anything, any more than it is one person asking another for help.

        • Josh: God is not a “person.” “CORPORATIONS are people, my friend.”

          Seriously, I don’t see how you can believe that God is a “person,” because people, by definition, are flawed. But, you know, believe what you want.

          • Goethe – I did not say that God is a human, I said God is a person. Humans are flawed, but God is not. There are billions of humans, but only 1 God.

            That is how God can be approached like a person. You see all kinds of back and forth conversations between God and individuals throughout the bible that read like one person talking to another.

            make sense? not asking if you believe it, do you understand?

            • Josh, as I noted elsewhere, I had 12 years of Catholic school catechism plus four college religion courses plus excellent history courses which included religious history. So it’s not a question of “understanding.”

              The fact that people think they are talking to God, and claim that they hear voices, doesn’t prove anything about prayer.

              And, finally, you keep claiming that you believe every word of the bible as absolute fact and without interpretation. Yet, you claim that God is not at all like us.

              Genesis (long before Phil Collins) 1:26 says

              “And God said, let US make man in OUR image, after our likeness.”

              I’ll bypass the question of why there is more than one God in that meeting, or whether He had a personality disorder.

              The words, themselves, say that humans were to be created JUST like God. But you’re picking and choosing what that means. Do we “look” like God, with ears, eyes, and nose? That is what “image” and “likeness” means.

              Are you interpreting God as meaning only our soul? But the soul has neither image nor likeness.

              And if you “interpret” what God really meant there, why not elsewhere?

              But Merry Christmas, anyway!

            • Goethe -Correct, anyone claiming they have had a personal experience is not evidence that the experience is what they think it is. However, it is evidence that something is happening.

              Also, there is no evidence that the bible is wrong, no one has ever produced any evidence that the bible is not true. Have they raised questions, yes, but questions are not evidence, they are just questions. Things like ‘Is God smart enough to ask a question He can’t answer?’ aren’t questions that prove or disprove God’s existence or the truth of the bible.

              The only reason I have ever heard anyone give as their evidence that people don’t talk with God is…they don’t believe it. No evidence, they just don’t believe it. And just because you don’t believe something can happen, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen or isn’t real. Just because you haven’t experienced something, doesn’t mean other people haven’t.

              This ‘i don’t believe it’ thing was the final straw that put Jesus on the cross. When He was brought before the Jewish court, they could not find any legal means by which to convict Him. So they asked Him directly, are you the Son of God, and He said ‘yes’ – they cried blaspheme and the crucifixion process started (over to Pilate, over to Herod..etc). But the fundamental reason Jesus was crucified is that the leaders did not believe He was who He said He was. Similar to today, people think, ‘if what you are saying was true, i would believe it, but the fact that i don’t believe it is evidence you are wrong.’

              I never claimed the bible is absolute fact without interpretation.

              What I said is that God is the one who helps people to understand what is in the bible, and they cannot come to the right conclusion by their own intellect. The 1:1 relationship is how God designed things to be. Reality is not designed for us to come to grips with it without His aid.

              We *must* interpret the bible, with God’s assistance, and other people’s assistance (who have also had His guidance).

              But I don’t think you and I mean the same things when we say interpret.

              Obviously man is not made completely like God, God is incapable of sin. It is impossible for God to lie. God very clearly said ‘I am not a man’

              So God, being a person, can be approached as a person, and have requests made of Him. And also being one who envisioned and birthed America (according to the founders), it is reasonable to approach Him to maintain His cause.

            • Josh: I guess the reason for this discussion is that you are confusing your beliefs with what is true for everyone. As I noted elsewhere, if you talked long enough with the person you think agrees exactly as you do, you will find that his or her beliefs are different in some area. No two people can believe alike, since we all have different experiences and different reasoning equipment to run it through.

              So, if you were to say “I believe that–” or “I think that–,” our response would be, “that’s interesting. I can see what you’re saying.” But when you say your way to believe is the ONLY way to believe (and you say that in every post, by claiming exclusive possession of truth), then you invite skepticism and even defiance.

              Now then, once you admit that the bible is up for interpretation, you automatically negate your claim that the bible must be accepted, verbatim. And I have not heard anyone say the bible is “wrong.” If you want to believe that a human can “command” God to stop the rain for three years in a specific area of the earth, that’s up to you. Nobody is saying that a human never stopped rain from falling. There’s no way to prove that.

              But personally, I don’t think “rain” can ONLY be interpreted as “humid air making contact with cooler air, thereby reducing the dew point and causing h20 to fall from the sky to the land beneath because of gravity.” Why couldn’t “rain” mean nurturing love, or some other attribute that could poetically be referred to as rain? “Don’t rain on my parade”

              OR couldn’t “stopping the rain” mean not having SUFFICIENT rain to produce crops–that is “that’s not a ‘rain,’ that’s just a sprinkle!” We have seen lots of droughts, and maybe over the many thousands of years that humans have existed, maybe there was one place, somewhere on earth, that a total drought lasted three full years. But even then, I find it hard to believe that a human “commanded” it to occur, or if he did, that it wasn’t just a coincidence that the weather pattern changed.

              Here’s a good discussion of how the bible uses “rain” as a metaphor:
              http://www.biblesecrets.org/METAPHOR.htm

              I will stipulate that it is ENTIRELY possible that you and I, and everything we know, did not exist until a second ago, and that a Supreme Being created it all, along with memories implanted into our heads. Anything is possible. It all depends on what your brain allows you to think, understand, and believe.

            • Sam: I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean “cool” as in “groovy, man,” or in, “shut the f- up!” This tread is about the different meanings of words, so that confusion is appropriate.

              Anyway, I agree that time is only NOW for us. I read a book by Wayne Dyer, in which he said if we feel guilty, we’re “living in the past,” and if we worry, we are “living in the future,” and he says both offend God, especially if we doubt God’s plan for the future. So we must live in the present.

              http://ashy2classy.net/2013/04/16/why-are-you-dwelling-on-past-or-the-future-live-for-today/

              HOWEVER, I don’t think I’d say that “to the Source there is no time.” I think I’d say to the Source, there is ALL time at once, and it is only our limited perception that sees time-limited “snapshots” of what is.

            • Goethe – We are old men, “cool” means what it meant to us in the ’50’s, or groovy in the ’60’s or “Shut-Up” or “Shut-The-Fk-Up” in the 21st century or in English, “I like and appreciate your expression, thought or material object – and think it’s quite appropriate”. How is that for metaphor or symbiology.

              I have always enjoyed Wayne Dyer ( and that expression which describes many, many things about conduct of the soul. Recently, in Nov(?) he met with Esther Hicks and had a great Channeling session with Abraham. Quite a session indeed!

              My studies all say there is only NOW in the 5th Dimension (Heaven, Home, Energy or God domain). And as you said, we can see the whole “Movie” at once of the Big Bang to Light’s Out and focus on any one segment that we so desire.

              BTW: Dyer – Esther / Abraham and Politics – Prayer (10 min of the two hour chat): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxYd9yQHjhQ ,

            • Goethe – I believe the earth orbits the sun – is that true for everyone? I believe the moon orbits the earth – is that true for everyone? i believe that the human body is mostly water – is that true for everyone? i believe that combining chocolate syrup and milk, and applying the stir principle makes chocolate milk…is that true for everyone?

              What is real is true for everyone. Reality is what we all live in. It is what it is, it isn’t what it isn’t. If I have come to understand a part of this reality we are all a part of, am I supposed to pretend that there really might be other options just so people won’t get their feelings hurt, or feel better about their belief, or so that we all can get along? If there was a flood and I knew how to help people, should I say…well, this really might not help you, it is just kinda what i personally believe…you make your own decision, I won’t dare say…its safe and dry over there because you may not believe it, or there are other people who believe its not safe and dry where I know .. oops, personally believe…it is.

              Try taking your approach with the policeman who pulls you over next time for speeding…sir, I just don’t believe I was speeding, you don’t have an exclusive right to reality, you and i just differ in our beliefs on my speeding, and since you don’t have a right to impose your beliefs on me sir, you must let me go. But then, I now realize that if you let me go, I would be imposing my beliefs onto you, which I cannot do…so you must give me a ticket. But then if you give me a ticket I will be accepting your version of reality, which would be imposing your beliefs onto me..which you cannot do. and so on, and so one…ad infinitum

              If you didn’t think a person has a right to say their beliefs are absolutely correct, than how can you defend that any person has a right to vote? Aren’t they imposing their beliefs, rather than just expressing? If people don’t have a right (in your opinion) to simply claim what they know is true, how can they then vote that claim? If you say that people should vote what they believe because they *might* be right, then you agree with me that if you know something is true, you should act like it is true…even if other people don’t agree with you.

              For interpretation, you and I have different definitions of interpretation. Maybe mine is closer to translation. What I mean by interpretation is ensuring that I understand what is meant by what is written. The question about the meaning of rain can be approached if you completely take the word out if the place it was used and then abstractly identify all potential meanings of the word. Once you take it out of its context, and treat all other uses as equal, you lose all connection to original intent, and miss the whole story.

              I mean, will you really have a conversation with a thief who holds a gun to your head and says, give me your money or I’ll kill you. Will you ask, sir, I don’t really know what you mean when you say kill, or money. Kill can be used in so many contexts, so I don’t know if your promising to hurt me, or party with me. And I don’t know what you mean by money, because money has historically been used in so many different ways and…ad infinitum

              But you have proven my point for me. The *only* reason you have for saying what I am promoting isn’t true is that you don’t believe it. That’s fine. I’m not saying anyone *has to* accept what I believe, but I’m also not going to pretend its not true either.

            • Josh: EXCELLENT example:

              Does the earth revolve around the sun? Sure, but ALSO, the sun revolves around the earth. It’s all a matter of perspective. The sun DOES revolve around the earth, if that’s how you want to look at it–it’s just a very unusual revolution. And all the planets and stars revolve around the earth, if you consider that the world is fixed. From that perspective, everything revolves around the earth. It’s NOT “wrong,” it’s just a very complicated pattern of revolution.

              Does the sun revolve around the earth for everyone? Yes–given the premise that the earth CAN be seen as fixed, then, yes, it is true for everyone that everything revolves around us.

              And as I said elsewhere, it is ENTIRELY possible that the universe was created only one second ago, and all the people and places and books were created along with us. You cannot prove otherwise–because your memory, the history books, carbon dating, and everything MIGHT have been created at the same time. ENTIRELY possible.

              It all depends on what you believe, and what you believe is “true” for you, but it is NOT aurotmatically true for everyone.

              Regarding the cop example, I can’t believe that you are claiming there is only one truth, even in the cop pulling you over. Did he get the right guy, or was someone driving a similar car? Is his radar gun reading correctly? Is he just a jerk who needed to fill a quota? Is your speedometer working right? Are there mitigating factors (eg, your wife is giving birth in the front seat). Is speeding an infraction of the law, or is it just a calibration of the position of the car to the road? What if you’re in the middle of a gang of cars going the same speed?

              The fact that we have a court system at all proves that there are alternate perceptions of realaity, and someone has to referee.

              Regarding interpretation, you’re saying you see it more as translation. And once again, are you saying there is only ONE “correct” translation? Different languages often do NOT have words that mean the exact thing. That’s why some words move into other languages–because that thought cannot be expressed in the accepting language. Go to the translation sites and see how differently the same paragraph can be translated–by computers, which have no vested interest in changing the meaning.

              This discussion we are having right now backs me up. We’re both speaking English, and yet, we are disagreeing on what the words mean that we are using. Are you automatically right in your interpretation–and am I automatically wrong?

              And that gets to your last point, that you are CLAIMING that I ever said what you’re saying is “untrue.” I NEVER said what you are saying is “untrue.” In fact, I have specifically said it IS true “for you.”

              That IS the point we are arguing. You are claiming that what you believe is true for everybody. And THAT, sir, is the claim that is NOT “true.”

            • Goethe – I’ve heard the ‘true for you’ fantasy before. it is simply not reality, and you know that. You are smart enough to know that there is 1 reality we all live in. Which actually is why you are arguing against me, because the reality you believe exists for everyone conflicts with the reality I am explaining, so it seems you are trying to get me to see how what I believe really isn’t true…well, at least not for anyone else that doesn’t believe like I do.

              Question, do you believe that a tree falling only makes a sound, or is that too difficult a question for you to answer yes or no? If you can’t answer that question yes or no, then you really have trouble gripping reality. It seems you are getting into analysis paralysis. Analyzing something so many ways that you are unable to give a straight answer…well, what if the person that’s there can’t hear? or has a hearing aid with a faulty battery? It seems you are unable to grasp the crux of questions, and answer accordingly. Or is it the kind of answer that says…in the world you believe exists…yes, but maybe the world you believe exists doesn’t really exist and maybe some other world really exists in which sound is unpredictable, so maybe…or maybe there is a world that exists that trees don’t make sounds, so no..but then again…ad infinitum.

              …or does the tree making a sound depend on the what the person believes who is answering the question…or is it really dependent on who’s asking?

              I get where you’re coming from, though, it seems there are those whose mind is stuck in the theoretical while the real world is going on all around them. Seeing fantasies as possibilities, and possibilities as true realities..maybe..somewhere (maybe it was a reality 5 minutes ago, but isn’t now, but maybe it will be again in 5 minutes), intentionally, deliberately not mentally committing to anything, except a lack of commitment to anything.

              I get is some are just non-committal. But there are those who are in touch with reality.

            • Josh: Nonsense, not to mention offensive.

              Show me where I said a “universal reality” agrees with me or disagrees with you. You are, as always, projecting what you believe onto others.

              I would counter that your claim “that there is 1 reality that we all live in.” is just wrong. Ask a cop who investigates an incident. If he talks to more than one person, he’ll likely get a different report from each person. And they were right THERE.

              Obviously, you have never gone downtown to see the homeless guys talking to themselves. I believe that ALL of us are delusional to some degree–not crazy, but we cannot ever be 100% sure of anything. As they say, “believe a quarter of what you hear, and half of what you see.”

              And, again, you’re projecting when you say, “you are trying to get me to see how what I believe really isn’t true.” Where did I every say any such thing? What I am saying, over and over, is that what is true for you IS TRUE–for you. You are the one who is trying to say everyone else is wrong if they don’t believe as you do.

              I know what you were trying to say regarding the tree, although I wanted to play with you, pointing out that what you really said was that ONLY trees make sound.

              Your point was that it is reasonable to assume some facts, based on our experience, so we can infer or interpolate missing information. But at the same time, you are saying evolution is ABSOLUTELY untrue because there is not 100% evidence to prove it. It’s never been more than a “theory,” just as gravity is a “theory,” but it could also be, instead, that “the earth sucks.”

              What you believe is TRUE–for you. I’m just asking you to admit that what others believe is TRUE–for them.

            • Goethe – you are actually agreeing with me that there is a reality we all live in, with both of your examples.

              for one, in your theoretical situation the policeman is investigating an incident that really happened, right? that would make it something real that truly happened no matter what, correct?

              with the homeless example, those people really exist, right?

              if the answer is yes then you agree with me that there is a reality we all live in regardless of what people believe.

              its just that in your view of reality God is not a person who cares about people enough to listen to them and wise enough to know when to say yes or no.

      • Josh: What Oblivious means is that he thinks HE is God. (Bow, mortal!!)

        Nobody else is denying your right to your beliefs. There are a lot of rights that would disappear if people like aberrant Oblivious gained a following.

        • goethe bore,

          let it all out…you need to;
          for such a little man you are filled with so much hatred, you might explode one of these days otherwise…LOL

          • Oblivious: You’re the only one spouting hatred here. If you had a sense of humor, you’d understand the difference between hatred and ridicule. You’re amusing.

            • Goethe Bore — you stand for nothing. You are nothing but a fence sitter. You’ll post anything on either side of the argument just for the sake of posting.

              And when someone exposes your usual tripe, you vent your hatred at that poster by attempting to be “cleverly funny”.

              You have never been clever, nor funny, here. You are just a nincompoop that can’t help himself replying to each, and every single, thread with whatever silliness pops into your foolish head.

            • Oblivious: Unlike you, I am interested in what normal people have to say. And I appreciate a new perspective.

              You never give anyone a hearing. You just scan to see if they are saying things you want to push, and sometimes, such as the recent condemnation of Tess, your hatred clouded the fact that she was actually agreeing with you, when she said, TWICE, that Congress has failed in reining in the Fed, and you saw it as “defending” the Fed. You are delusional.

              And, again, you’re the only one spouting hatred on here. Everybody else has given up on trying to get you to be civil. I don’ think you’ll ever be civil, but I also think you need to know how neurotic we think you are.

      • Goethe – you are actually agreeing with me that there is a reality we all live in, with both of your examples.

        for one, in your theoretical situation the policeman is investigating an incident that really happened, right? that would make it something real that truly happened no matter what, correct?

        with the homeless example, those people really exist, right?

        if the answer is yes then you agree with me that there is a reality we all live in regardless of what people believe.

        its just that in your view of reality God is not a person who cares about people enough to listen to them and wise enough to know when to say yes or no.

        • Josh: As usual, things have gone all over the map. You are now claiming non-religious (secular) reality??

          And, again, I have not stated ANY belief. I have only shown skepticism about things that you claim EVERYONE should believe.

          But lets backtrack. This thread began because you claim that fundamentalists are the largest block in the country, and that all a Republican has to do is get them on his side and he’ll win.

          Then you claimed that prayer would change politics. I responded that “it’s my understanding” (note that I was not claiming infallibility or omniscience)–that one can only pray to change himself, not to manipulate the outside world.

          Then, you claimed that we can, in fact, make God do our bidding, because the bible says God is obligated obey. I objected, saying that would be “magic,” in which someone uses “the force” to get what he wants.

          There were questions about whether the bible MUST be taken verbatim–and you said yes, that events described in the bible MUST have occurred exactly as described, and that it can never be a metaphor for a deeper meaning–giving the example of the “fact” that it didn’t rain for three years because a mortal (not God) commanded it.

          There was a whole lot of tangents and extraneous stuff, but at NO time did I state any belief, except to say that you can’t claim to have an absolute title to divine knowledge, nor manipulate the world through prayer.

          So I will give you one belief: You can believe what you want, but I think you’re full o’ crap.

          And finally, although I have stated no other belief during this whole discussion, let me quote the old theologian, W. C. Fields, who said, “a man has to believe in something, I believe I’ll have another drink.”

          And if Billy were around, I think he’d say, “I’ll drink to that.”

          • Goethe – I have said the same thing, over and over again. In reading your recount of the conversation it is obvious that you have read into my statements rather than just reading them.

            There is no secular reality vs. religious reality vs. your reality vs. my reality…there is one reality. One world, one universe, one existence. And it seems you agree with me on this..that there is only 1. however, you and I disagree on what that 1 is.

            What I have stated is what I know to be true and real, you have just disagreed with it. That’s all nothing more nothing less.

            i think it is possible that you have studied to much, or learned too much such that your mind is just a bunch of buckets and when people say things you put them in different buckets, and then argue out of those buckets. It seems that what I have been saying doesn’t completely fit into any of your mental buckets and you’ve been trying to make it do so.

            i have not claimed that anyone *should* believe anything. i have not claimed specifically that prayer would change politics. i have not claimed that we can make God do our bidding, that is your restatement.

            If you are going to recount the conversation and attempt to restate what I have said, at least have the decency to copy and paste, rather than restate your version. Your version is evidently what my words sound like to you, rather than what they sound like to me.

            I think your mind has been corrupted with bias. When people make religious statements believing them to be true, all kinds of red flags apparently go off with you that you have trained yourself to have. It seems religious things have a unique placement with you. If i were to talk about the benefits of ‘drill here, drill now’ in absolute terms…you would not raise the same type of ‘that’s your reality’ type of argument. So religion has a unique place with you that is clouding your mind.

            It reminds me of a recounting of a creationist. A creationist went to a place where people were discussing how the universe came about, but they would not allow him to speak. What was their reason? Because we accept *all* views here. So he said, well, since you allow all views, won’t you let me express mine? Response, no, because we accept *all* views here, not yours. in a similar way, you seem to think that religious views ought not be expressed in absolute terms, because evidently religion has a bucket with certain rules…at least for you.

            • Josh – gotta go with Goethe here – Actually if you don’t state that the KJV “facts” are your reality, you certainly imply them. Please re-read your comments from this thread:
              Josh – December 22, 2013 at 1:27 am · Reply –
              Read more at http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2013/12/gov-mike-huckabee-setting-groundwork-for-2016-run/#vgj8u8RvmBC639kB.99

              The comments are your beliefs and your reality and they are unique.

              As Goethe and I have said – Everyone has a unique belief or possibly no belief in Providence. Each one of us has a unique world and reality through their own eyes, ears, and touch. And if we comment on studying, it is for clarity and understanding for ourselves and verification of our own reality. There are many billions out there including Goethe and myself that don’t accept the KJV in it’s totality as a accurate written testament of God, Jesus of Nazareth, and the perfect history of Judaism from ~4000BCE to 0CE and therefore we have different realities.

              I believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the most evolved soul to incarnate on this earth and the greatest Teacher, but like the Jews not the Messiah because we don’t need a Messiah, The Source sparked us perfect and gave us incarnations to physically learn about Unconditional Love.

              Some of MY reality, as well as billions of others, are:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rWqOFOXMOc
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxYd9yQHjhQ
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXBxSdU54FU (reality ??)

              And a fact is Energy is non-destructible and can be described as an EMF and a cycle (i.e. 0 Hz to Cosmic Hz.)

            • Sam:

              You are obviously dedicated to find the Truth, and you have worked hard at it. I confess that I have not worked so hard.

              Let me ask you this: You have studied many beliefs. Have you actually looked into the Quran? I have not, but I should, since my immediate family now has Muslims. I know that Muslims see Jesus as an important prophet. They even agree with the Virgin Birth, and the miracles. It seems to me that they see Jesus in the same way you do.

              Have you looked into Islam, and if so, what is your opinion?

            • Goethe; You’ve piqued my ego, so I’ve done a little studying

              I am not even close to qualified to asses Islam, Muhammad, and his revelations, The Quran (Revelations) and Hadith (story of Muhammad and likes, dislikes). I’ll try out a couple of things, some my own words and some quotes. the one thing that stands out TODAY is Muslims take proselytism to a new level (like the Christian Crusades) and also during Muhammad’s revelation years from 622CE to 631CE. As a non-believer in that Muhammad is the last prophet and Messenger and Islamic’s version of Allah (God) is not your personal view – You will always be of a lower cast than any Islamist in your Relative’s eyes.

              I have studied a couple of books about Islam, parsed through maybe 1/5 of the Quran (perused some of the Surah’s, about half of the Old Testament, most of the New Testament. None of Torah and only read papers about Judaism, Buddhism, and oldest Hinduism.
              There are many similarities in verses (Christian / Jewish) and revelations / s (Islam). The continuation of Judaism and birth of Monotheism – is the birth of Abram / Abraham in 1948yrs from Creation – 1813BCE and 98 years later, 1911BCE came Ishmael and the genealogical birth of the Arabs. Next was Issac (~1913BCE) and the genealogy of Christianity was created and the Monotheism of Judaism.

              An affirmation of Islam similarity to Christianity is a 1971 translation of Surah 2:130 /Sura II, 130 – “Say you, we believe in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the Prophetsof their Lord; we make no division between any of them and to Him we surrender” — Present day translation version: “130. And who turns away from the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham) (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) except him who befools himself? Truly, We chose him in this world and verily, in the Hereafter he will be among the righteous.” – But by no means do Muslims believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, Savior, and “direct Son of God (Allah).

              Crap, my notebook pwr plug came out, didn’t know it and the little shit turned off and i lost over an hours worth of work – i will re-create tomorrow

              Bottom line is no matter what Islamist’s say about peace-loving – just want to profess their faith, the goal of their Leaders (Imam’s of all sects) are determined to proselytize the whole world to Islam peacefully or using war via jihad.

              Sharia is in conflict with US law and our Constitution and if Islam is allowed to flourish in the U.S. all other faiths will be treated as serfs and be a lesser people in Islam’s eye. The biases of the Monotheistic religions towards their selves and personal freedoms all contain too much Human (not soul) interpretation.

              Here are two biased accounts of history:
              Christian: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx (pretty heavy bias)
              Unknown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam (not as biased but Islam isn’t that innocent either.)

              Namaste

            • Sam: Thanks so much. I am very impressed that you put so much into it. You had mentioned your intense journey for knowledge and wisdom, so I was curious whether your investigation had included Islam.

              I have also been impressed with Muslims I have met. Some are as adamant that they own the truth (as Josh does), but they are kind and generous.

              I read about a study that said that atheists tend to be more moral than the religious, because religious people think they will simply be forgiven. I thought that was interesting.

            • Hi Goethe – i gave you a kinda of summary of what i lost last night, and if you read the two URL’s you got a feeling of thought processes between Judean-Christian vs Islam thought processes and concepts through biased eyes.

              I do agree that Islam was originally founded (Between 622CE {Muhammad’s 1st Revelation} and 632CE {his death}) as a peaceful religion in love and praise of a Monotheistic Allah and the Five Pillars of Faith: All are mentioned individually throughout the Quran (probably in the Surah 1 and together in the Hadith:

              Shahadah: declaring there is no god except Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger
              Salat: ritual prayer five times a day
              Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan
              Zakat: giving of one’s savings to the poor and needy
              Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, if he/she is able to do it

              But again humans (Caliphs and Imams) have created a maligned religion through power, control and the overuse of jihad

              Jihad – Struggle – can be summed in this Quote: “The Prophet… returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, ‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad—the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires (holy war).” This reference gave rise to the distinguishing of two forms of jihad: “greater” and “lesser”. My question is why is their need for struggle to “live for Allah” and why is there need for “Holy Wars”.

              I have known 3 couples of Islam over the last 15 years and they were all quite nice. But with their religious edict almost since 622 of proselytism peacefully or holy war until the whole world is Islamic that is somewhat controverted to my thots.
              _________________________________________________________________________

              Morals – i can easily believe your statement. You know my beliefs that The Source (or God if you like) resides in each of us as part of our soul. Well rather Atheists know it or not they have a soul and the source is there within us. So their moral character is driven by their inner thoughts, there may even be a bit of DNA involved at the animal level. In a way, Religious people may struggle with the “Greater Jihad” or what the human religious works tell them versus what the “I AM” intuitively answers them.

              Whatcha’ think?

            • Thanks, Sam. My computer monitor connection went down, so I’m iphoning it–and just lost what I wrote this time. Dang puters.

              I have also met some wonderful Muslims. And I have read that the faith can make a great difference in some lives, with it’s ban on alcohol. But like Catholics and birth control, some Muslims “interpret” that the ban is not really on booze, but rather drunkenness.

              I will say this: while I object to being preached to, I’ve found that Muslims just “explain” what they believe–rather than insulting what you believe. That may be because they know they are a minority, drowned out by all the explicit and subliminal Christian messages we are bombarded with every day.

              I was surprised the Islam is making inroads in Mexico.

              Anyway, the real people you and I have met have been gentle and loving. Yet, as with anything else, it is the nutcases who grab the headlines.

              People do not understand that the essence of “news” is not how things ARE–but rather, the aberrations. Or as they used to say–dog bites man is not “news”–man bites dog is “news”!

            • Josh: That is the gist of this whole disagreement:

              “What I have stated is what I know to be true and real, you have just disagreed with it.”

              PRECISELY. You know what is “true” and no one else does.

              And “your mind has been corrupted by bias.”

              DO YOU THINK YOU COULD BE MORE INSULTING?

              You are not saying it’s true–for you.
              You are not saying YOU BELIEVE it’s true.
              You are NOT saying what you think or feel.

              You are claiming that you KNOW the truth, precisely and exactly and exclusively–even though you admit that everyone interprets the truth, and that there are many, many interpretations, even within Christianity.

              It is the audacity, conceit, and hubris I object to.

            • Goethe and Sam – i find it alarming that both of you praise the pursuit of truth, but are objecting to someone who has found *a* truth. It seems that you are only OK with someone pursuing truth, but not OK with someone arriving at it.

              why? please explain how you think it is impossible for those who pursue truth to arrive at it? If you say, it is only truth ‘for you,’ then you are living in a fantasy world.

              Reality isn’t like allergies where allergens effect one person, but not another.
              Reality isn’t like colors, where one person’s favorite color might be black, while another person likes green
              Reality isn’t like channels on a TV where you get to pick and choose.

              There is 1 reality, we all live in it. How can neither of you see that? And, also explain how the pursuit of truth is impossible to be completed in any way.

              Should not one who is honestly pursuing truth, once they come upon someone who says they’ve found a truth, say explain, I want to understand because I want to know truth. Rather than, you can’t possibly have found a truth that everyone can embrace, you need to say it is a truth that only you embrace.

              I do not claim to have exclusive knowledge of truth, there are millions who think and believe like I do. But having millions agree with me is not evidence that what I believe is truth, just that I am not exclusive in it.

              Please answer how it is impossible to learn something that is true for everyone.

            • Josh:

              You have admitted that even Christians have many interpretations of what that “truth” is.

              I cannot understand how you can believe that only YOU have the truth, but I do not, Sam does not, Bob does not, Surfisher and Obvious do not, Billy does not, David does not, Tess does not, Bobby Ray does not, Betty does not, Mary does not, Godfrey does not, Peter does not, Bulldog does not, Ryan does not, Tom May does not, SicknTired does not, Zak does not, Ed does not, Victoria does not, Jimmy does not, Whit does not, Demokrat does not, Evelyn does not, Mike does not, Dave does not, Harry does not, JC does not, Jackie does not, Linda Dupere does not, Concerned does not, Elisa does not, Ima does not, Joyce does not, Beverley does not, Daniel does not, TT does not, Allan does not, Edmundo does not–and even “Fearless Leader” NATE does not!

              –Because I guaran-damn-ty you that if you were to do a one-on–one with ANY one of us, you would find that some of the things you claim to be 100%, absolute, and Incontrovertible truth WILL be severally and respectively seen as untrue by every,single one of us.

              Believe what you want, but your configuration of what is “truth” is yours, and yours alone.

            • Josh: You request: “Please answer how it is impossible to learn something that is true for everyone.”

              –I am NOT saying it is “impossible.” I don’t believe in “impossible.”

              I’m just saying I don’t think it has ever happened since the beginning of time, and the fact that you have faced such opposition even in this very small forum proves that it is not “true for everyone.”

              In fact, to put it into perspective for you, your claims sound the same to us as the claims of Obvious. Your “dogma” is just different from his.

            • Josh – Bless you that you have found your truth and reality, very few have and i’m still searching and will continue through more incarnations and at Home (in Heaven). We all must find what is true to ourselves and feel comfortable in our soul.

            • Goethe –

              I have never claimed exclusive knowledge to anything. Maybe its exclusive here, maybe its not. Reality does not require the faith of man to exist, so it doesn’t matter if I’m the only person in the world who knows what I know. But if I knew I was the only person in the world who knew this I would ask – “Father, this is a great truth for all people, why am I the only one you told? Goodwill toward man is a great thing!”

              So far, it seems at least that Bob agrees that God answers prayer. He did say:

              “When I pray I usually ask for someone I know to recover from an illness or accident but usually it’s to pray for guidance in making the right decision not for the Lord to take sides in an outcome of any kind.”

              Tess also seems to believe that God is a person who answers prayer (no, is an answer, I agree), she wrote:

              ” I read James 4:3 to say “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions”. Very clear “No” to me. The quote I use often is: John 15:7 “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you”. I interpret this as He will do for me what is best for me.”

              Seems they both agree that God is a person who cares about people and answers prayer. We may disagree somewhat on specifics, but regardless of what we disagree on with specifics, there is 1 underlying reality.

              I have said 2 things, and 2 things only (just supported it in various ways) –

              1. God is a person who cares about people and answers prayer.
              2. “I Believe” God founded and established this nation

              I will never back off of item 1, it is absolutely true for all people. God cares about all people, He will answer our prayers. God loves all people. I will not back off of that absolute truth.

              You just don’t believe Item 1. You don’t believe it is even possible. Using your own words reveals you don’t believe it is possible:

              “I’m just saying I don’t think it has ever happened since the beginning of time” (in reference to people finding the truth)

              You read what I say, and then follow it by saying no one has discovered truth. Which effectively means you are claiming that what I believe is IMPOSSIBLE to be truth, while at the same time claiming that ‘anything’ is possible.

              So you are really saying, anything is possible…just not what I am saying, but then..again..reality does not require the faith of man to exist.

              Which brings things back to the crux of the disagreement…you just don’t believe what I have said. Nothing more, nothing less.

            • Josh: You’re playing games.

              I am sure you are wrong that Tess and Bob agree with you in everything you believe to be ABSOLUTELY true. I did not say you could find one, single item that someone could agree with.

              And to quote their argument against you is not to say what they believe. They are only saying your interpretation does not work for them. The issue at hand was whether you can make God change the political situation though your prayer. Bob was clearly saying that is NOT his understanding. And, likewise, Tess was just arguing against your claim that God will do what you want.

              And, no, you did not say two things only. You also said that (1) you can change the country through prayer, and (2) there is only “1” reality that must be the same for everybody, (3) there are so many fundamentalists that if someone got them on their side, they’d win the presidency, (4) that people can change God’s mind, and a whole lot more.

              Now you’re claiming that I think it’s “impossible” that God is a person. I never said that. In fact, in my last post, I said that I do not BELIEVE in “impossible.”

              And you’re being totally disingenuous, and yes, lying, by saying I claimed it was impossible that there’s some “person” out there, somewhere. When I said it never happened since the beginning of time, I was answering your statement, “please answer how it is impossible to learn something that is true for everyone.”

              (A) I even said it WAS possible, but (B) it never has happened–that all people agreed on the same exact truth. In the book, Adam and Eve did not have the same truth, for crying out loud.

              No, the crux is NOT that I don’t believe as you do. The crux is that you CLAIM to hav absolute truth, which you believe to be true for everyone. My answer to that is, I do not doubt that YOU believe it, and even that it is TRUE for you. But your series of “absolute truths” are NOT true for anyone else on earth.

              And since this is going around in circles, let’s just agree that we are both right, and we are both wrong.

  15. Bob — no response on this post, kid?

    December 24, 2013 at 12:19 am

    lil’ bobby,
    so you accept the ideals of the US constitution to be negotiated away by never-ending compromises into nothingness, since that’s today’s political reality?!
    i feel sorry for you on your defeatism — or was that your original goal by posting here, to tell the american people…just give up, for justice and liberty for all ain’t gonna happen according to Bob???
    shame on you!

    • Oblivious: Bob has already said you do not deserve response.

      Do you not understand what “unworthy of reply” means? I had warned him that bullies must be answered, because otherwise they feel that they have “won” against the world.

      But it didn’t occur to me that your ego is so fragile that you would doubt your self-worth if you are ignored.

      • goethe bore — is your name Bob?

        keep venting your hatred,

        otherwise, such a little man as you holding so much hatred might burst at the seams…. LOL

        • Oblivious: I answered because Bob said he is exasperated with you. But I do apologize to Bob for doing the easy work of pointing out you silliness.

          No hatred here at all. Just amusement. Why on earth do you think people hate you? If anyone disagrees with you, they must be part of the vast, worldwide conspiracy against you, right?

          • goethe bore — you are the only one here filled with hatred towards me, no wonder you presume to answer for Bob, or anyone else, just to spew forth your sickening hatred.

            why, because i expose some of your posts as truly idiotic…what a sick little man you must be.

            seek psychiatric help, sad little troll.

            • Oblivious:

              Dude. No sane person would see any “hatred” in my responses to you. Only amusement–and, yes, ridicule. That’s not hatred, it’s just a normal response to idiocy.

              The fact that you are projecting your hatred on others is worrisome.

  16. Goethe…Sorry I was offline for awhile but you held up exceedingly well. This morning I saw a picture and caption of Pope Francis washing the feet of a Muslim woman and kissing the face of a disfigured young man. He has declared that “God has redeemed all of us…not just Catholics. Everyone, even atheists.” Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the “Francis effect” got caught on the wind and all the world began to breathe love and mercy.

    • Tess: Thanks.

      Yeah, I had stopped paying attention to popes. I barely remember their names. . .there was John, Paul, John-Paul, then there was George-Ringo, oh, and the Nazi pope, Benedict-Arnold. I think.Francis is the only pope since John XXIII who knows how to reach people.

      Of course, I don’t go along with everything he says, but he has a style that is caring, not imperious.

      The irony is that he’s not saying much that the other popes didn’t say. The difference is that the other popes would give a long speech about the world, but then say a few words about condoms, and that’s all the media wanted to talk about.

      Francis says he assumes everyone knows the church’s stand on “sexy time,” so why waste time restating it? And that means that the media may actually be forced to report on substantive issues, instead.

    • Tess – Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it were reciprocal and the leading Imam of Iran would wash the feet of a Christian evangelist vice the bombing in Iraq on Christmas Day. Then we ALL can begin to learn and understand Unconditional Love.

      • Sam: I assume you meant “versus” rather than vice, right?

        The top Imam in Turkey says there’s no room for terrorism in Islam:

        http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/terrorism-has-no-place-in-islam-turkeys-top-imam.aspx?pageID=238&nID=55492&NewsCatID=393

        And the Supreme Leader of Iran is signaling his willingness to bring Iran back into the community of nations:

        TEHRAN — Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday that his country should embrace diplomacy over militarism, saying it was time for “heroic leniency,” and signaled his embrace of international outreach efforts by new president Hassan Rouhani.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-endorses-diplomacy-over-militarism/2013/09/17/cbd97760-1f92-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html

        Despite the fact that the real power in Iran is the Clergy,the conflict is really just politics. And I think it is a good example of how irrational things get when religious people run a nation.

        • Goethe – yes, i meant vice-versa or versus or vs vs vice, i have used vice several times but will have to watch the comms with these URL threads.

          Me thinks you know quite a bit about Islam that you never let on. And if the Quran doesn’t specifically state jihad => holy war => terrorism against non- Muslims it sure does imply it, and Muhammad certainly deployed it. And the Quran specifically states that Christians and Jews are a lesser cast than Muslims and shall be punished by taxes and possibly other measures.

          The fact that the Leaders of Turkey and Iran said they would prefer diplomacy over jihad simply means they are in no position to launch a pure jihad, so using Taqiyya is next best thing. While Turkey’s Imam is important and there are several Grand Ayatollahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is probably the most influential Cleric / Leader in the Islamic world. That’s why i said that Imam should specifically wash the feet of a Christian or Hebrew.

          I fully agree how religious power can create havoc in the political world. But the politicians must hold to the moral of their soul and the Creator’s standard that ALL human species are created equal and should not posses what they didn’t earn, emotionally or physically.

          • samreusser — all good posts by you!

            Have you noticed that Goethe Bore feeds like a hyena on TYPOS… lacking any logical respond, he bashes people for their misspellings alone?!

            • Oblivious: If you understood the English language, you could tell the difference between asking Sam a question to clarify meaning–as opposed to ridicule of someone (you) who purports to be perfect and then makes a stupid mistake.

      • Sam…I believe I felt a touch of irony in your words I have read the Koran. It is non-violent in teachings. No one organization has assumed responsibility for the Christmas Day bombings. So many can be suspects. The US has massive military operations in Iraq’s western desert now trying to hunt down insurgents who are committing attacks across Iraq in past months, This may have been their response. Sectarian violence between the Sunni and the Shiites, who dominate the government, may have spilled over. And, of course, the global Islamic insurgent movement as lead by al-Qaida is always choice #1. al-Qaida actually has no home country.

        • Tess – just as there are violent verses in the Old Testament there are violent surah’s in the Quran – read Goethe and my exchanges earlier on this thread for more.

          You obviously are in greater touch with our military than i am and specifically know about U.S. mil ops search for insurgents in N. Iraq. Military Times tells me that Iraqi Security forces are in the west and north but no U.S. Forces – and of course the Security forces are Shi’ite.

          The Christmas car bomb was targeted at civilian Christian worshipers in Baghdad by Sunni insurgents. not troops or even Security forces. Does it matter to you who the perpetrators are unless you are Sunni or Sh’ia, like were they Southern Baptist or Pentecostals
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(post-U.S._withdrawal)
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

          al Qaeda started in Afghan with the Taliban but since we killed many of their leaders they have become very fragmented and are just basic terrorists spread across the MidEast in the name of jihad but most now are just plain hoodlums trying to create havoc and be funded to do dirty work.

          • Sam: I thought from the outset that it was silly and disingenuous to consider al Qaeda as an army. What they committed on 9/11 was a crime, and they should have been treated as criminals. Yes, it was “organized” crime, but you can’t declare war on someone who has no land to attack.

            I think we could have also had better luck organizing opposition if we framed it as law abiding citizens against criminals–instead of simply one side in a war against another side. As a war, other countries felt they could remain neutral.

            • Goethe – I agree about al Qaeda but it was very well organized originally and bin Laden controlled and planned quite using the jihad-Holy war religious concept to further the Taliban position. I do believe they were outlaws and not truly sanctioned formally by any nation. but various Muslim funding’s were instrumental.

              I don’t think that anyone (nation) was going to join us, civil or military, until personally affected. Like right now the mighty Bear just went non-linear over their last bombing and declared an all out war on “terrorism”.

            • Sam:

              I have to admit that I was as caught up in the hysteria and anger after 9/11. I made a generous contribution to the 9/11 fund, and I agreed with tne Afghan War–not because I thought it was “right,” or because I thought it would end well, but rather, because the American people were deeply wounded, and a drastic action was called for. Also, we did give the Afghan government the option of turning over al Qaeda. If they had been smart, they would have thrown their hands up and said they don’t know em, come looking if you like.

              In that case, it would have been harder to justify the war,and the Taliban might still be in power.

              But I REALLY disagree about our position in the world. It was the worst of times, but it was also the BEST of times, if we had acted intelligently. The French were saying, “we’re ALL Americans now.” Condolences came from Cuba, Iran, even North Korea. Most people don’t realize it, but during the Afghan war, Iran was supremely helpful. We were acting as allies.

              We were unstoppable, not only because foreigners agreed with us, but they knew we were temporarily insane,and we were liable to do anything.

              If we had communicated with world leaders, we could have had an attack like the “Gulf War,” with almost everyone on our side. It could have been real statesmanship, real leadership, real responsibility, and we could have then led the world to wipe out al Qaeda.

              The world would have been a very different place.

            • Goethe – I think i mentioned i’m not a war monger but i am a retaliation monger if opponents needlessly aggress and won’t listen to reason or negotiation. read my response to Tess, this thread: December 31, 2013 at 5:43 pm.

            • Goethe Bore — you stand for nothing. You are nothing but a fence sitter. You’ll post anything on either side of the argument just for the sake of posting.

              And when someone exposes your usual tripe, you vent your hatred at that poster by attempting to be “cleverly funny”.

              You have never been clever, nor funny, here. You are just a nincompoop that can’t help himself replying to each, and every single thread, with whatever silliness pops into your foolish head.

          • Sam… as of Dec 26, 2013…Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, The US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.Reports say the troops include US Army officers and almost 17,000 more are set to secretly return to Iraq via the same route. The US military is in the western desert of Iraq, some as Advisors, and the others we might call searchers. Iraq has requested 10 reconnaissance drones and Hellfire missiles from the U.S. to help with waves of attacks perpetrated by al Qaeda and its affiliates. There is also debate within the Iraqi government about having American-operated and armed Predator or Reaper drones. (New York Times).

            I do occasionally read the Military Times but it addresses itself only to the Military Community and warfare.

            And, yes, it does matter to me Who committed the crime. The perpetrator(s) should be caught, criminally charged and prosecuted. Then we should ask the Saudi’s why they see fit to be one of al Qaeda’s largest financial contributors,

            • As I said Tess, you have better and / or more accesses to Mil Ops. I don’t believe we should have been in either country and we have lost both conflicts and needlessly sacrificed all our military souls. Frankly i would have dropped two big bangs and told the two nations you stay out of our ‘bidness and we’ll stay out of yours. Those opponents were /are not evolved enough to peacefully resolve disputes for a common positive solution.

              I didn’t say WHO didn’t matter, i said the sect is immaterial. You should jump in the Saudi’s fecal matter, especially since there were our “best” friends outside of Israel.

              My opinion not debating – you all have a good day, heah!

              p.s. and a Happy New Year!!!!

          • samreusser — Happy New Year to you and yours!

            May it be Obama-free — by impeaching the Kenyan Usurper of our White House this year!

Comments are closed.