OK, EVIL WON. NOW HOW FAR DOWN IS BOTTOM ?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:


Finn dAbuzz wrote:


(I wonder what "personal license" means? vague)

I must CHALLENGE u, Find Abuzz,
both as to your semantic nomenclature qua "conservatives"
and qua your reasoning. I worked for and voted for Barry Goldwater
and I support the views of the Founders of this Republic,
e.g. George Washington, James Madison, etc. Accordingly,
I am a conservative.
The anti-abortionists are trying to hijack and run away with my good name.

The conservative position on freedom of abortion is purely libertarian,
respecting the chick 's natural right of self defense from the parasite.
We note, incidentally, that those parasites have killed
their hostesses occasionally in the past, and afflicted them
with unnecessary pains and inconveniences
with none of which chicks have any duty to put up.

The Founders established a secular republic, not a theocracy;
the anti-abortion craze comes from theocratic origin.
It does not arise from the vu of the Founders; ergo,
insofar as anti-abortion crusaders claim to be conservatives,
thay are IMPOSTERS, as to this issue.
Thay might be conservative as to other issues.


Analogizing, the anti-abortion position is like advocating
that when a cougar pounces upon a fisherman and he begins shooting
or stabbing the cougar defensively, that government shoud rush up to defend
the cougar and threaten the fisherman (or fisherchick) with incarceration and fines
for defensively counterattackingg the predatory cougar,
who in this analogy represents the intrusive fetus that snuck in.

The true conservative position is libertarian, opposing the intrusion of government.
Because the anti-abortion position DEVIATES from the paradigm of liberty, it is LIBERAL.




Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Baloney!
That is like saying that u have no right to kill a burglar.
If the fetus is NOT WELCOME, then it is an intrusive,
predatory parasite that has no right to be there.

If government, or anyone, interferes with a chick 's natural right
to defend herself from parasites, then it is ENSLAVING her,
and extorting labor in the production in question.
She has NO DUTY to nurture parasites (human or not).
She has no duty to produce humans.
She can freely rest upon her 13th Amendment rights.

Alleging that chicks have no right to defend themselves
from parasitic intruders is NOT a conservative position.
If u claim that it IS, then it falls to u to prove that the Founders
of this Republic included that among their political principles.





`

It seems to me the following is a wrong argument to take in defending a pro-abortion stance.



Unlike burglars, presumably fetus's are innocent of any wrong doing. Furthermore, last I heard we don't go around killing burglars.

On the subject, perhaps back in the day republicans were more freedom loving than democrats, but in these modern times I don't think so.

However, so far I haven't seen much action to fit the campaign rhetoric in this field and many others from the Obama administration. But I still have some hope left that it is a work in progress and still a heck a lot better than any of the alternatives we had in the election IMO.

Genoves said


Into the breach once more. Let it be said masseggeto that you never fail to miss any instance of misappropriating reality to frame the wrong context. For instance, my denigrating this Paleolithic McCarthyite for a lack of substance in his initial post is an inappropriate comparison to any comment I would have written in response to the one you which you replied. Both because I did not comment upon it, nor as well as you failing to recognize the actual differences in the two posts. The former post was representative boiler plate titty ass whiney baby emotionalism of a spoiled child who was not getting his way and thereby attempting to hold his breath in a tantrum, versus the latter, a reasoned, organically conceived defense of a popular political position from first causes. You see the difference, I assume?

Sadly, our Mr. McCarthyite whose sanity I, as well as others question, is doing what I have asked your ilk to do on numerous occasions, i.e., to be able to elucidate a rational path from your meta-principles to particulars. Only Finn and sometimes you masseggetto do this to an acceptable extent, and you both get reasonable responses from me to them when you do them. However, masseggetto since you continue to hide behind repeated pseudonyms, it is less likely that you engage in honest debate, simply because you are attempting to disguise your old persona.

Btw I criticized our Mr. McCarthyite rather harshly. But that’s what the internet is about. Blogging is not for the thin-skinned. And you would think that someone who spent his youthful days trying to destroy other people’s reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn’t be so childish and thin-skinned.

Btw massy since you said the following about Mr. McCarthyite’s post, viz.,


You ought to recognize that his remarks dovetail with my own liberal positions and thought processes on abortion and same-sex marriage, and are diametrically opposed to those of mainstream conservative Republicans; which would be you, finn, waterboy, and chjsa

The problem is no other alleged conservative has elucidated his opinion in a similar, cogent manner.

It is that fact, your side’s imprecise, factually inaccurate, and contextually devoid defense of your political positions extrapolated from first principles that generate such scorn to thinking people, not the particulars of any such defense.

revel wrote:

David wrote:


revel wrote:

This allegation is correct ONLY
as to INTENTIONAL pregnancy. If the fetus is NOT welcome,
then it is a predatory, intrusive parasite like swine flu germs,
and therefore: NOT INNOCENT.
Whether it is human or not is no excuse for this parasitic status
(again, unless the fetus is welcome). Some of these parasites
have been killers, and almost all of them have inflicted pains
upon their victims, who have the natural right to fight back.




Agreed, that we don 't go following them around,
but if u find one in your own home,
then u need to decide what u wanna do (fast).
Truthfully, if I found a burglar in my house,
I am not certain that I 'd necessarily opt to kill him.
It depends on the circumstances, and on what mood I am in.
I 'd not wanna shoot him, if he were standing in front of my Hi Def TV.


Last week, a NY immigrant disarmed him
(both a burglar and a robber), held him at gunpoint
and gave him $40 and food before sending him away.
Maybe this will now become politically correct.







Sadly, very sadly: I must agree.
When Reagan chose Bush, I said it was a mistake.
Reagan did it to balance off his own conservativism.
The Bushes were never conservatives; personal freedom
never had a hi standing in their hierarchy of values.
Some of us r inclined to deem them R.I.N.O.s:
Republicans In Name Only.




When I started this thread, I expected America and our freedom
to decline a lot faster than it has. As I see it, the most critical time
will be the last 6 months before the next Congressional election, when Obama
will presumably be most franticly trying to reduce our freedom,
in anticipation of a loss of strength in Congress,
possibly including loss of either house of Congress.

As bad as some of his appointments have been (expectedly)
truth be told, I have liked some of his policy choices,
notably his revocation of W 's policy of limiting funding
for stem cell research; (that was W 's first act of office).


To give credit where it is due:
I expected this administration to have been a lot worse, a lot faster.

It will be interesting to see how he addresses
the North Korean communists' adventures with nuclear weapons development.





David

The term I used was "absolute personal license," while I think it stands perfectly well on its own, let me see if I can make it clearer for you.

"License" can be defined as "freedom of action"
"Personal" can be defined as "proceeding from a single person"
"Absolute" can be defined as 'having no restriction, exception or qualification."

Thus "absolute personal license" refers to an individual's freedom to act in any way he or she chooses.

Conservatism does not advocate absolute personal license and neither does libertarianism.

I appreciate that not all Conservatives hold the pro-life position, but I would suggest that this is based more on their adherence to libertarian rather than conservative principles, and requires a starting belief that a fetus is not human life.

Your bizarre and erroneous characterization of a fetus as a parasite may be offered for shock value, but it's superfluous to your point. You merely need to state that you not believe a fetus is a human being deserving of the legally protected right to life.



Although one learns to expect the unexpected from you OmSig, I expect that you do not believe that laws that prohibit infanticide "deviate from the paradigm of liberty." Again, I appreciate that you probably do not hold a fetus and an infant as having the same legal status, but if you did, I don't believe you would find laws that prohibit abortion as "government intrusion."

My point is that conservatives, who do consider unborn children human life and deserving of the right to life, are not violating their principles of personal freedom and restrained government any more than does a conservative who believes the government should protect the right to life of infants.

Phoenix's original question clearly asserted that pro-life conservatives contradict their principles because the control of abortion is tantamount to the controlling of a woman's freedom; and indeed, that control of the mother and not the preservation of the fetus is the goal of pro-life conservatives.



This is nonsense.

The question of when a fetus becomes a human life is not one that science can answer. Science can tell us at what stage in the pregnancy the average fetus is likely to remain viable outside of the womb, but inferring that this marks the point where humanity crystallizes is based on personal opinion, not scientific fact.

A person's beliefs will inform their opinion as to when”humanity" begins. Those beliefs will have been developed through numerous influences: family, friends, school, personal experience, meditation, epiphany, and religious teaching.

I don't believe anyone develops a belief system based strictly on religious teachings however, even if they did, this would not, in any, way imply that a person who advocates laws that are in sync with their belief system is advocating a theocracy, and should laws be created, changed, and stricken down based on a widely held belief system informed by religion, it doesn't follow that our democracy has been replaced by a theocracy.



Do you deny that the Constitution provides us with the right to life?

If you do not then it is necessary to answer the question of the legal status of a fetus. Right now a fetus, that survives the first trimester is usually afforded the legally protected right to life. If I am reading your post correctly, you oppose this and believe the mother should have the right to abort the "parasite" at any time during the pregnancy (and if this is not your position, it certainly is for many pro-choice advocates). Others will believe that the legal status should be granted at the moment of conception. Neither position reflects the current state of the law, but that certainly doesn't preclude people from holding them or advocating their application to the law.

With Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, found a right to abortion through a torturous discovery of a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment. Even some pro-choice legal scholars question the logic, if not the result, of the decision.

Never-the-less, Supreme Court decisions create the law of our land and we are bound to abide by them. Of course this doesn't mean that once a decision has been rendered it is inviolate for all time.

Very few of us that Brown v Board of Education was not a welcomed rejection of Plessy v Ferguson, and even fewer will argue that the appellants in Brown should never have challenged the Plessy decision.

In any case, it is not my intent to argue the issues surrounding abortion, but to point out that it is unfair and incorrect to assert that those who take a pro-life position do so to "exert control," or "enslave" women, and that the position is entirely within the parameters of conservative principles.

finn said


If the consequence of abortion legislation removes the right to decide from the woman and places it in the hands of the state how can it not be described as "exerting" control?

You just described a working definition of exerting control.

There are few real conservatives left in the GOP, most have fled to the libertarian fields.

As said by David earlier, one should not lump Barry Goldwater with the likes of Bush.

What holds the GOP now is a utopian philosophy that has as its holy grails "market capitalism" and an economic plutocracy. Bandits and brigands roam the conservative terrain, but none have been able to articulate how a conservative agenda will work for the future of this country.

The likes of Limbaugh stir in his listener’s feelings of inferiority and inadequacy towards "intellectuals" and he plays on this feeling by telling his listeners that brains don’t count. It is a very old American idiosyncrasy that plays the ignorant mob versus those with the information.

Limbaugh is attacking obliquely what the intellectuals are saying by attacking them personally, disrupting the messenger is the easiest way to dispute the message.

Distilled down, the message of intellectuals is "You don’t have to be sheep." the sheep, on the other hand are angry that it is pointed out, that by their own behavior they are acting like sheep, and resent anyone telling them that they are not thinking for themselves. This is what Limbaugh exploits, and damn well too.

Quotes from Goldwater:

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"A woman has a right to an abortion."
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I am a conservative Republican," he wrote in a 1994 Washington Post essay, "but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, "A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I,, believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. "I look at these religious television shows," he said, "and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million - they brag about it. I don't believe in that. It's not a very religious thing to do."

But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right's long-term impact on his beloved GOP. "

If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in."

In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater In a Sept. 15, 1981, Senate speech, Goldwater noted that Falwell's Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other Religious Right outfits were sometimes referred to in the press as the "New Right" and the "New Conservatism."

Responded Goldwater, "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.

The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."

Insisted Goldwater, "Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects....

"By maintaining the separation of church and state," he explained, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars .... Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state:"

Goldwater concluded with a warning to the American people. "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," he said, "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives...

"We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now," he insisted. "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."


http://www.concentric.net/~Tycho4/Goldwatr.htm

What in the hell is a "democratic republic"?

The framers formed a constitutional republic and that's what this country is.

You'll have to ask Goldwater. He said it.

Kuvasz wrote:

What holds the GOP now is a utopian philosophy that has as its holy grails "market capitalism" and an economic plutocracy. Bandits and brigands roam the conservative terrain, but none have been able to articulate how a conservative agenda will work for the future of this country.

**********************************************************************

I'll tell you how it won't work!

It won't work with a ghetto hustler running it who has laid a Trillion Dollar deficit on the American people.

It won't work with a Socialist( who learned his economic philosophy from a radical Anti-American scumbag like Saul Alinsky) who has given us a TRUE Unemployment Rate(U-6 ) of at least 16%

It won't work with a muddle headed Utopian who thinks "cap and trade" will work when China and India refuse to go along and contiune to pollute.

It won't work with a redistributionist who thinks that the dreadful Health Systems in England and Canada will be greatfully accepted by the citizens of this country.

And, it won't work with a child of Affirmative Action mismanaging our upper level educational system by promoting the ridiculous notion that more morons from the inner city can profit from College Education. Obama apparently does not understand that a REAL College Education can be obtained by those who are at or above 120 IQ. If Obama wishes to water down College Curriculum even more than it is today, he may open more opportunities for the great unwashed, but only if he lowers College Curriculum to the level of a good high school.

The Czar was bad but Stalin was much worse!

The Weimar Republic mismanaged Germany but Hitler destroyed it.

Only "true believers" like Kuvasz want to replace Adam Smith with Karl Marx. They may well yet succeed!

You still have not told us how your brand of conservativism will work in the modern, post industrial 21st century.

As one of your cultural ancestors said:

"Boost, don't knock."
George F. Babbitt

But seriously, thank you for your response, because it supports my earlier statement. When I mentioned that modern day conservatives are unable to articulate how a conservative agenda will work for the future of this country, instead of picking up the challenge and running with it to articulate a working conservative vision for America you simply attacked your political adversary and neglected to do what I warned that you could not do.

No wonder normal people are fleeing the Republican party and conservatism.

Would it be justified to ask of you and your colleagues why not attack the ideas that led to the political positions rather than the person who espouses them?

You are going to have to explain it me how Barack Obama learned his economic philosophy from Saul Alinsky since Alinsky died before Obama turned 11 years old.

And if you say Obama read it in a book, one could also attack Obama, "who learned his economic philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth," since Obama is a Bible-reading Christian and the Beatitudes sound a lot more like the liberal Alinsky who championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless than a Pat Robinson-conservative.

But again, before you post any other nonsensical brain farts I would like you to accept my challenge and articulate how a conservative agenda will work for the future of this country.

btw, either you have not read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, or you have not understood what you have read from him.

Perhaps to you, the normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business all the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity. However, business does act on the prevailing business philosophy, which claims that corporate self-interest eventually produces the general interest. But, this comfortable belief rests on misinterpretation of the theory of market rationality proposed by Adam Smith.

He would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable. He saw the necessity for public intervention to create or sustain the public interest, and took for granted the existence of a government responsible to the community as a whole, providing the structure within which the economy functions.

Classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. Part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. But, the obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government as "Utopian Marketplacers" believe.

Business looks after the interests of businessmen and corporation stockholders. Stark and selfish self-interest obviously is not what motivates most American businessmen and -women, but it is the doctrine of the contemporary corporation, of the modern American business school, and the philososphy de jure on Wall Street. .. and look what that has done to economic strength of the nation.

It does not automatically serve the general interest, as any 18th century rationalist would acknowledge - or any 21st century realist.

Kuvasz wrote:

What holds the GOP now is a utopian philosophy that has as its holy grails "market capitalism" and an economic plutocracy. Bandits and brigands roam the conservative terrain, but none have been able to articulate how a conservative agenda will work for the future of this country.

**********************************************************************

I'll tell you how it won't work!

It won't work with a ghetto hustler running it who has laid a Trillion Dollar deficit on the American people.

It won't work with a Socialist( who learned his economic philosophy from a radical Anti-American scumbag like Saul Alinsky) who has given us a TRUE Unemployment Rate(U-6 ) of at least 16%

It won't work with a muddle headed Utopian who thinks "cap and trade" will work when China and India refuse to go along and contiune to pollute.

It won't work with a redistributionist who thinks that the dreadful Health Systems in England and Canada will be greatfully accepted by the citizens of this country.

And, it won't work with a child of Affirmative Action mismanaging our upper level educational system by promoting the ridiculous notion that more morons from the inner city can profit from College Education. Obama apparently does not understand that a REAL College Education can be obtained by those who are at or above 120 IQ. If Obama wishes to water down College Curriculum even more than it is today, he may open more opportunities for the great unwashed, but only if he lowers College Curriculum to the level of a good high school.

The Czar was bad but Stalin was much worse!

The Weimar Republic mismanaged Germany but Hitler destroyed it.

Only "true believers" like Kuvasz want to replace Adam Smith with Karl Marx. They may well yet succeed!

Kuvasz wrote:

As one of your cultural ancestors said:

"Boost, don't knock."
George F. Babbitt

*******************************************************************

Oh, please, stop being so juvenile. George F, Babbit is not a cultural ancestor who would rebut Obuma. Geroge F. Babbit was too stupid to rebut Obuma. Or did you forget what you read?

I regard Sinclair Lewis as a "meathead" who wrote a "horror" story--"It can't happen here". I read that one too, Kuvasz.

No real conservative could agree with Lewis. He said:

“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”


As far as I am concerned, Lewis was highly excrementitious.

Cultural ancestor,indeed. You really have to try harder, Kuvasz. Try that crap with someone who hasn't read Lewis.

Kuvasz wrote:

You are going to have to explain it me how Barack Obama learned his economic philosophy from Saul Alinsky since Alinsky died before Obama turned 11 years old.
*****************************************************
Are you saying that an idea dies when its inventor dies? How did Arthur Koestler learn his economic philosophy from Karl Marx since Marx died before he was born.

Obama's mentors when he was a "community organizer" were acolytes of Saul Alinsky. Note the testimony from Alinsky's son about the tie in between Obama and Alinsky''s ideas.

Note:

Saul Alinsky’s son: “Obama learned his lesson well”

Judi McLeod Bio
Email Article




By Judi McLeod Tuesday, September 2, 2008
In Artful Dodger style, Barack Obama, plays down his mentorship with Communist author Saul Alinsky. But Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, credits Obama for “learning his lesson well” from the Communist guru.

Indeed, Alinsky Jr. who credits his late father for the success of last week’s Democratic National Convention, may have done something that Obama’s detractors couldn’t: blown the cover on the presidential hopeful’s communist leanings.

No one can blame Alinsky for the pretentiousness of the Ancient Greek Temple from which Obama addressed plebes, or for the tacky neon colours on display at the Pepsi Centre, but it was Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals, the bible of the far left.

Says Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky of his father’s influence at the Dem Convention: “ALL the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.”

“The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style, the Communist guru’s son wrote in a letter published yesterday in the Boston Globe.

The Artful Dodger may be less than pleased that he has been pegged as a Saul Alinsky Poster Boy by the guru’s own son.

“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe. “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

Alinsky should be reminded that the West has stared down communism everywhere it has raised its hideous head.

influencing a Democratic convention from the grave pales in comparison to the results that followed President Ronald Reagan’s famous words, “Mr. Gorbachev, take down this wall.”

The commonsense and freedom-loving Gipper would have chuckled at the audacity of Obama’s Ancient Greek Temple stage setting and would have told Obama what he told the world: “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.”

Reagan also said: “I have seen the rise and fall of Nazi tyranny, the subsequent cold war and the nuclear nightmare that for 50 years haunted the dreams of children everywhere. During that time my generation defeated totalitarianism. As a result, your world is poised for better tomorrows. What will you do on your journey?”

“Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist.” (American Thinker, Aug. 30, 2008). “As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn’t coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots. Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services.”

Obama followed the same path.

It is a fact that activist-cum senator Barack Hussein Obama started off his career as an activist with a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned, in Alinsky’s own words, how to “rub raw the sores of discontent”.

Meanwhile L. David Alinsky, perhaps unwittingly put Obama into the proper perspective by stating without reservation: “Obama learned his lesson well.”



Kuvasz wrote:

And if you say Obama read it in a book, one could also attack Obama, "who learned his economic philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth," since Obama is a Bible-reading Christian and the Beatitudes sound a lot more like the liberal Alinsky who championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless than a Pat Robinson-conservative.

*******************************************************************

You may think so, but Alinsky was a piece of dreck, A life long Socialist,he was not in line with Christianity or the Beatitudes.

Note:

Obama Not Starry-Eyed Like His Followers


Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist. As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn't coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots. Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services.


When Obama first undertook his agitating work in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods, he was un-churched. Yet his office was in a Church and most of the folks he needed to agitate and organize were Church people -- pastors and congregants -- who took their churches and their church-going very seriously. So, this became a problem for the young agnostic, who had been exposed to very little religion in his life. Again and again, he was asked by pastors and church ladies, "Where do you go to Church, young man?" It was a question he dodged for a while, but finally he relented and joined a church.


Not just any church, but a huge black nationalist church with a pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who unabashedly preaches a "black" gospel. Rolling Stone Magazine ran with a story on Obama and his church, entitled, "Destiny's Child," which included this excerpt from one of Rev. Wright's sermons:


"Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones.


"Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!"


"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!"


The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T

******************************************************************

1. Alinsky a confirmed atheist--Please--no baloney about Beatitudes and Bible reading. Obama was NOT a church goer when he became a community organizer. When he became a church goer,he selected a church which had a pastor( Obama said he never heard these comments) whose quotes from "Rolling Stone" appeared above.

*******************************************************************

I am so sorry, Kuvasz but the truth is that Obama is most probably the same kind of "Christian" that Clinton was--You remember Clinton coming out from a church meeting laughing uproriously and then looking pious when he saw the camera.

The truth is, and can be documented profusely, that Obama heard Wright often since he attended church to see and be seen but said he never heard the Anti-American preachments from Rev. Wright's pulpit. I find it incredible that the most brilliant man who has ever been president did not know that his pastor was an ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMBAG.

Kuvasz wrote: referring to Adam Smith


He would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable

Reallly?

What about Karl Marx?

Would he have found the "market primtivism" of the current day unrecognizable?

Would Albert Einstein have found the "string theory" of the current day unrecognizable?

That's a crock and you know if, Kuvasz.

Now, back to Adam Smith---I have read Smith. I have also read Milton Friedman who comments on Smith. Friedman wrote:

"No voluntary exchange thatis at all complicated or extends over any considerable period of time can be free from ambiguity. There is not enough fine print in the world to specify in advance every contingency that might arise and to describe precisely the obligations of the various parties to the exchange in each case. There must be some way to mediate disputes. SUCH MEDIATION ITSELF CAN BE VOLUNTARY AND NEED NOT INVOLVE GOVERNMENT. IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY(1980) MOST DISAGREEMENTS THAT ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS ARE SETTLED BY RESORT TO PRIVATE ARBITRATORS CHOSE BY A PROCEDURE DECIDED IN ADVANCE, IN RESPONSE TO THIS DEMAND AN EXTENSIVE PRIVATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM HAS GROWN UP. BUT THE COURT OF LAST RESORT IS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM."

The problem is that Obama thinks he is Mussolini. He thinks he is the governmental judicial system!

Kuvasz wrote:

Business looks after the interests of businessmen and corporation stockholders. Stark and selfish self-interest obviously is not what motivates most American businessmen and -women, but it is the doctrine of the contemporary corporation, of the modern American business school, and the philososphy de jure on Wall Street. .. and look what that has done to economic strength of the nation.

Selfish self-Interest????? Isn't that an Oxymoron? If self-interest isn't selfish,it doesnt exist.

The economic strength of the nation was and is being sapped by the policies of Obama--the One Trillion Dollar deficit which is going to rise if Obama gets his way; the TRUE 16% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE--shameful--And apparently unaffected by the ridiculous and highly expensive stimulus plan; and the useless and counter productive rhetoric, Chamberlain like, that Obama aimed at the world. He does not know or does not want to know that he missed the real culprits. The Ayatollah Komeini was not impressed and reasserted his ( therefore Iran's) opposition to the Great Satan-the USA. North Korea stuck it to Obama with its launching of another missle.

If this is progress, I don't want to see retrogression!

Readers of this thread ought to take note that after repeatedly asking for genoves to articulate a conservative vision for America in the post industrial 21st century he spent the subsequent four posts on ad hominen attacks towards his political opponents and refused again to answer my question.

And you wonder way I have always considered you to be an intellectual lightweight?

Excuse me, genoves spent not four but seven posts on his brain farts, failing in each instance to articulate his conservative vision for America in a post industrial 21st century. I am sorry for the correction but his posts were so awfully stupid that they ran together in my mind.