Thursday, February 07, 2008

Romney Drops Out

Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today after a poor showing on Super Tuesday. Mitt Romney's departure from the race will lead the way for a Democrat to be elected in 2008. While Romney was a weak candidate compared to Clinton or Obama, he appealed to the Conservatives that put George W. in office twice. With McCain all but assured to be the Republican nominee, a lot of core Conservatives will stay home.


Anonymous said...

Try a slightly different scenario.

Mitt (what kind of name is that anyway) takes his hundreds of millions of dollars and goes home. McCain makes peace with Huckabee, continues to bring independents like Lieberman on board, and begins to make peace with the conservatives who disagree with him on policy a whole lot less than they hate Clinton.

And do not forget, whatever Ms. Coulter says, they HATE Clinton and will do anything to defeat her, incluiding actively and financially supporting someone who they disagree with on policy.

The conservative coaltions will secure promises from McCain (cabinet positions, judicial appointments, policy concessions) in exchange for their support. He will start building a national coalition while the democrats continue to fight over who will be their nominee.

Clinton and Obama keep fighting till the convention and the winner is so happy just to be the candidate and so proud to be the first woman or black candidate for President that they forget that getting to the big game means nothing if you don't win.

All the while, McCain's coalition is building strength, resources and credibility with the masses in this country, all those marginally political rednecks who still believe that our president has to be some white guy.

All those people accross the country who will say one thing to pollsters, but when the curtain closes and they are alone with their thoughts, they will not pull a lever for a white female or black male candidate for President.

The republican party settled on their most electable candidate. The democratic party is left choosing between the two most historical candidates. Over and over again, electability has never been the focus for our party.

Pretty sad.

Anonymous said...

I put a long post here yesterday, and it didn't take... so suffice it to say: Horah! In regards to Romney being out! But watch out for "Rev." Huckabee, who has apparently been endorsed by Dr. ("Rev.") James Dobson, who has reputedly been known to siphon some major funds off to the GOP, via a front group...

"Separation of Church and State," folks. I'll say it again, and again, and again!

Preachers belong in the pulpit.

Politicians belong in the White House.

And there should be no crossovers betwix the two!

Anonymous said...

How come there were no separation arguments made when REV. Jesse Jackson ran?

Anonymous said...

To 2:42 PM.

I don't know the answer to that one... but trust me, if I was politically aware at the time (I wasn't) I WOULD have been making the same types of statements.

It's also true that I wouldn't have been okay with Rev. Robertson (I was not politically astute then either...) running for office. I wouldn't have been for Rev. Jackson running for political office. I wouldn't be okay with Rev. Sharpton running for political office. And I'm NOT okay with Rev. Huckabee running for political office.

Bottom line, this isn't about color and/or socio economic class, if that is what you are implying (?)

It is --- and I will say it again, and again, and again --- about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Anonymous said...

4:55- Keep up the pressure! I was aware at the time and there wasn't an internet then to influence the electorate like there is now. For the past 11 years I've been pushing the "theocracy" buzzword and finally after all these years it has become mainstream. During that time, activities to thwart the social conservatives ended up egging them on to their short-lived victory. Now thankfully they're begun their rapid descent into irrelevance. We need to shut the door on them by keeping pressure on McCain to stay too liberal for them while stomping on Obama's attempts to get their bible thumping Hillary-haters to join his clan. Obama is staying competitive by siphoning these whackos with vague empty promises. A despicable activity in my opinion. Hillary isn't allowed to go there. I read through Obama's "Blueprint for Change" and it made me sick. I don't think these Obamabots understand it well enough to know how utterly abusive it is to the least among us. Sure, he'll make me richer,but at whose expense? My neighbor's? No thanks. Only 3 out of 10 Obamans are these subversives. The rest can be reasoned with and reclaimed. All the nastiness of this Obama/Clinton rift is attributable to these undesirables in our midst.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what's more laughable, your thinly veiled neo-con tactics to foist Clinton upon the progressive Democrats, or your delusions of grandeur. The fiction of each is equally transparent, though.

Anonymous said...

2:46-You're too stupid to matter and no one cares about whether you find humor in a post or not. Whatever misery you're in is well deserved.

Anonymous said...

2:46- You obviously don't know what a neo-con is. You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

Anonymous said...

neo-con: new conservative, a recently coined colloquiallism attributed to the virulent right wing supporters of certain ultra-conservatives, known for using lies, fear mongering, and other despicable tactics.

as in, your attempts to marginalize Barack and convince Democrats to support Hillary. they are as transparent as your lame attempts to convince us that you're a millionaire who made up the term theocracy.

crawl back into your neo-con hole. we're onto you. besides, bill o'reilly wants his butt buddy back.

Anonymous said...

9:47-I see you got yourself a dictionary. Spewing more lies to try to back up you old lies is spinning quite a web. Practically everything you say is a lie. I think denying people universal healthcare and protecting predatory lending practices (36% ??, see "Blueprint for Change") are in your guy's agenda and are the conservative views in this race. Why do you think Edwards can't endorse Obama? I've never lied once on this web and the people that know who I am aren't going to be swayed by your lies. In fact they're quite humorous. They paint you as a 52 year old mental midget, living in poverty, with no ability to defend his/her agenda other than to spew hateful insults at their superior. Just a miserable wretch you are. If you could just make a point without lying and twisting statements out of context to suit yor needs, you might not be destroying your man Obama so badly. Hillary is still leading. Without Florida and Michigan.

Anonymous said...

I've been looking in the U>S> Constitution, and I can't seem to find where it mentions Seperation of Church and State! Can someone help me find it? Thank you!

Anonymous said...

9:03 AM - if you had the brains of snail you'd know that definition didn't come from a dictionary.

your continued attempts to try to divide Democrats are not working.

I've yet to meet an Obama supporter who won't vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

I've yet to meet a Clinton supporter who won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

that's a red herring promulgated by you and other neo-cons to try to pit Democrats against each other. just like that lame attempt to claim that Obama is a conservative and to try and link him with McCain. that one fizzled quickly when it became clear how ridiculous it was.

Hilary's losing ground every day on the delegate count. maybe the party relics (the superdelegates) will put her over the top, but probably not.

either way, the Democratic nominee is going to win with overwhelming support, despite the lies, distortions and pathetic attempts to drive a wedge between us, by you and people like you.

as I said, we're onto you...give it up.

Anonymous said...

First off you need to read and understand it. Once you accomplish that it, appears in plain sight. For further evidence of it's existence,in case of your failure to understand,read the Treaty of Tripoli.

Anonymous said...

5:31- Obama has condemned you time and time again. You Hillary-haters have no place in this election. You're not a democrat and never will be. Get lost and quit trying to pose as a real voter.

Anonymous said...

Elected Democratic officials are party relics? Wow,you're assumed dead before you even leave office. I know the election cycle is tight but that's pretty severe.

Anonymous said...

Try the "Bill of Rights," which was tacked onto the Constitution (in most cases) within a month or so of the original document, simply because it was all a work in progress and needed to be ratified/accepted (WHICH IT WAS)state by state.

The "Bill of Rights" is the part of the Constitution that is meant to protect the rights of the general populous.

Do you really WANT to give that up, wear a bull-ring in your nose, get pulled in whatever direction the elites (the folks really in charge...) care to drag you?

Have you read any history? Would you welcome back female servitude to males (beatings optional), poor houses, mental institutions with people chained to the walls, public executions?

As the old saying goes... "be careful what you pray for, you might just get it."

Along with your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who might not see things (this could all get pretty dark...) the same way that you do...

Anonymous said...

I was a bit off about the timing in regard to the "Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights," but in the 2006 "Time Almanac" you will find the "U.S. Constitution" laid out from page 109 through p. 118.

These pages (how the Constitution is listed in the Almanac...) also contain the "Amendments to the Constitution of the United States" (p. 114-118) and/or the "Bill of Rights."

"Amendment 1 [Freedom of religion, speech, of the press, and right of petition]" is on page 114. It reads like this:

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

Anonymous said...

Interesting 12:01. Congress cannot pass laws for or against any established relgion. Can that include, there can be no laws prohibiting the exhibition of religous articles on public property?

You see, the SoCS people get their strength from a 1960s Supreme Court. NOT from the constitution.

Anonymous said...

4:00-You fail to understand that publicly held land is funded by the government and as such it may not be used for the establishment of religion. Note that there is no reference to established religion as you state. Try to read more carefully.

Anonymous said...

5:40, nor is there any reference to publicly held land as an exception to laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You see, that phrase "establishing or recognizing a religion, while not prohibiting the exercise of one", can be seen both ways. The 1960's court saw it one way, and hence, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" has since been used as if it were in the constitution.

Anonymous said...

I still can't find this separation of church and state that people refer too, seems to me this country was founded in god. I'm not one of you super intellectuals but i still don't see where in the "Constitution"you come up with it!

Anonymous said...

Nobody stops a person from praying on public lands. It's the construction of a religious symbol or shrine on public lands that crosses the line. You don't question that people can't build a shantytown in the park do you? As for your assumption that this country was "founded in god", it is a false one. This country answers to no higher authority. It was founded free and apart from theology. This secular democratic republic cannot be bound by theology if freedom of religion is to exist. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion,just as 2 times 3 equals 6,requires that 6 divided by 3 equals 2. The concept of a wall of separation is equally important to protect religion as it is to protect people from it. Tear down the wall and religion will be destroyed. I would love to see religion gone, but I have empathy for those who suffer from it enough to not call for their complete annihilation. Atheists are the largest minority now in this country,followed by catholics. Rest assured that tearing down the wall is not helpful to your continued practice of your disability. The separation concept is your protector.

Anonymous said...

Nobody stops a person from praying on public lands. It's the construction of a religious symbol or shrine on public lands that crosses the line. You don't question that people can't build a shantytown in the park do you? As for your assumption that this country was "founded in god", it is a false one. This country answers to no higher authority. It was founded free and apart from theology. This secular democratic republic cannot be bound by theology if freedom of religion is to exist. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion,just as 2 times 3 equals 6,requires that 6 divided by 3 equals 2. The concept of a wall of separation is equally important to protect religion as it is to protect people from it. Tear down the wall and religion will be destroyed. I would love to see religion gone, but I have empathy for those who suffer from it enough to not call for their complete annihilation. Atheists are the largest minority now in this country,followed by catholics. Rest assured that tearing down the wall is not helpful to your continued practice of your disability. The separation concept is your protector.

Anonymous said...

"I would love to see religion gone". Why, because it imposes judgements on a persons actions or how they live? Because guilt is not a good feeling? Because, it separates us from the animals? Because "do what makes you feel good" is not nescessarilly 'in line' with most religions? I know, you think there'd be less bloodshed. Stalin thought this and so do the Chinese. Talk about bloodshed.

There is only so much 'secular action' you can take, to make people in a society BEHAVE as a society. Such as making laws, and punishment. But you CAN'T control the masses with law alone. For example, the speed limit. Sure it's posted, but there are plenty of those who ignore the law, and never are caught. Now, religion is not going to stop speeders (although it will to some, because respecting the laws of the land is part of their beliefs). There'd be a noticeble increase in theft, infidelity, teen sex, unwanted pregnancies pedophilia. Oh these are already on the increase, ever since the 60's, about the same time "Separation of Church and State" became law.

Anonymous said...

Religious communities all suffer much higher incidences of divorce,teenage pregnancies and spousal abuse. So your assumption that religion is a good model for society doesn't prove itself out in practice. Pedophilia in particular is becoming a religious practice. You can find it in every church. I think the FBI statistics showing a relationship between high numbers of religious centers and violent crime really struck home. Religion is the scourge of the earth and it's in direct conflict with civil society. We know the neurological defect responsible for it and it doesn't look like your acceptance in society as a normal person is going to exist in the next generation.

Anonymous said...

The concept of forgiveness and absolution of sin are a free pass to lawbreakers and contribute to the criminal element that flourishes in religious areas. Athiests have their own sense of right and wrong as borne out through scientific testing. There is no abdication of responsibility like godheads have.

Anonymous said...

EXCUSE ME, but a whole LOT of the increase in CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE has been amongst the CLERGY and religious persons, so DON'T give me THAT crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even locally, we got a little glimpse of how THAT works, now didn't WE?

I'm not a communist. In fact, I consider Communism an anti-religion religion...

But somewhere in the middle (modified captialism; separation of church and state; socialized medicine; etc) there MIGHT be a place where there is NO unnecessary bloodshed and every person's human dignity is respected!

If people obey the speed limit they obey the speed limit because it is a law.

I respect that. I obey the speed limit.

If the law ever dictates (THIS WOULD ONLY BE POSSIBLE IN A THEOCRACY, RELIGIOUS DICTATORSHIP and/or a place where RELIGIOUS EXTREMEISTS ARE IN CONTROL) that I'm a vile criminal that should be (as an agnostic and humanist...) shunned, stoned, tortured, forced to undergo an exorcism (ritual abuse????????), put in prison, hung in the public sqaure, burned at a stake, etc. (READ YOUR HISTORY BOOKS) --- methinks things have gone

Don't you?

Do some research...

How many sex offenders have had religious upbringings? How many sex offenders have been associated with the ministry and the priesthood? How many murders, wars and genocidal actions have involved "religious" persons and/or principals?????????????????

Now. Ask the same questions (remember to do the research!) regarding those that claim to be agnostics/humanists - and in NO WAY dabble with the supernatural...

THAT is where you will find the SHORT (child abuse, child sexual abuse, murder, war, genocide) list of such offenders. And, based on my research (considerable!) --- it is a VERY SHORT list (particularly contrasted with the list above...) INDEED.

Stats and facts, my friends. You gotta' go looking for them, but they are out there!

"Is it not strange that men are so keen to 'fight' for religion and so unkeen to 'live' according to its precepts?" (Georg C. Lichtenberg; "Aphorisms"; Translated by R. J. Hollingdale; 1990).

"Society is a hall of distorting mirrors" (Colin Wilson; "The Outsider;" 1956).

"If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would 'not' be --- a Christian" (Mark Twain; "Mark Twain's Notebook"; Albert Paine, Ed.; 1935.)

Anonymous said...

Everyone's statistics are skewed, because 90 pecent of the world's population believe in some form of religion. That's like a room of 90 men and 10 women, half of them smoke, and you say that men are more likely to smoke than women.

You think I am some kind of zealot. I am not. I agree with you, of the need for ballance. (but why do you have to throw in Socialized Medicine, that has NOTHING to do with this discussion).

You want to talk about the erosion of personal freedoms. Think about seat belt laws, smoking bans, helmet laws, trans fat bans. These have nothing to do with religion. I have yet to see a law, limiting our person freedoms on whether to practice or not practice a relgion.

Stop with the quoting. Speak from your heart and personal experience. It makes far more sense and reflects your convictions, than quoting Lichtenberg.

Anonymous said...

I'll quote all I like, thank you very much. But please take note of the fact that I don't always know the facts about the person that I am quoting - I simply like what they said.

Mark Twain is, of course, an exception to some degree. He put out a lot of GREAT stuff, including some that he apparently didn't dare have published until after (by others) he was dead.

I don't consider you a zealot. I don't even know you (as far as I know) well enough to make those kind of judgments. But I do know that there are a lot of zealots/extremists out there today (involving a number of different belief systems/ideologies) and that we need to protect ourselves from being stripped of our personal (particularly in the realm of free thought, belief, and expression) freedoms.

Statistics are generally scewed, you are right about that. But even viewed through that lens, the number of sex offenders, killers, war-mongers, etc. that claim to be "religious" (millions? billions?) demonstrate that religious training and belief is NOT a deterrent (for millions to billions...) in regard to horrendous acts of cruelty.

Personal ethics are what matters. And one does not have to be religous to be ethical and/or humane.

In fact, quite the oppisite (for far too many folks) appears to be true.

Think about it.

What if someone is an atheist or an agnostic and has political aspirations?

Do they just stay out of the field?


What if a young boy really, really wants to join the Boy Scouts --- and his family is atheist, agnostic?

Does his family say, "sorry son, you aren't 'good enough' for them...


There is a letter in this months issue of "Freethought Today," about a woman that wanted to join the Elks club and was turned down because she did not believe in God.

What did her religous friends advise her to do when filling out the form?


So... how many alleged believers are truly believers anyhow?

Ask yourself that.

I respect true faith (which I believe is a personal, not public thing.) I really do.

There are some people of faith, in fact, that I respect (some of whom I also love) immensely.

But people need to start wrapping their heads around all of this. They need to be willing to examine what is going on... how we got where we are... and if this is really the direction [i.e., a 100 year war (which has a lot to do with religion and $$$$$$$) in Iraq...) we want to go in?

Anonymous said...

I heard estimates that 60% were actual believers here as opposed to 30% in western europe. It was in the context of safer foods and medicines over there and the resulting effects. I don't know the origin of that statistic. When every hospital has an MRI scanner and the cost is lowered to being routine, we'll have concrete numbers.

Anonymous said...

Well, if your estimates are anywhere near the mark, that would mean approximately 40% of "believers" in America (probably inclusive of those pulling in the megabucks...) are actually lying --- which is a pretty high percentage.

And don't think the pressure (to believe or at least claim that you do...) isn't on locally either, because I recently had a talk with a construction worker that turned down a job he very much needed because a condition of taking the job was that he go to church services with the boss on a regular basis...

And there ARE other places, locally, where one cannot get a job (this is covertly if not overtly accomplished) unless one is a Christian (at least ON PAPER) and a non-smoker (boozing it up is apparently still okay on your off-time!), as well.

In fact, there are even ball-teams at this point, where one must be a Christian to join, and where one must commit to bringing in a certain number of (legitimate or no...) converts.

All of which is very cultic (generally NOT a good thing...) indeed.

Which brings to mind the 12-step groups that are here, there, and everywhere - which claim one is free to believe (or not) whatever one chooses --- but applies pressure, pressure, pressure --- through the wording still utilized, some of the testimonials, pushy recovering evangelicals, and eventually (by some, not all) shunning and shaming (if you've been around a while and haven't "converted") --- which leads an unknown number of people back out to the land of addiction - or whatever thier presenting problem (s) might be.


In the course of my life travels...

I've been told I'm going to "burn in Hell" because I was (at the time) living (unmarried) "with" my partner...

I've been told I'm going to "burn in Hell" because one of my friends happened to be a lesbian.

I've been stalked (AND YES I DO MEAN STALKED) by a couple of people who were determined to MAKE me convert...

And other such (these are the "cream of the crop") things...

Is THAT "love" - "kindness" - "compassion" - "acceptance" - "Christianity?"

If so, I will pass.

[As a point of interest, I should note that these issues (bad personal experiences...) have NOT involved any Catholics, Muslims or Jewish folks...]

Anonymous said...

I have to say I've seen that too. I even have Catholic relatives that evangelize in direct conflict with their teachings. The jews and muslims never did that. This discrimination they practice is fodder for my ridicule of them in public places. I have no reason to fear them so I can do it with impunity. You'd be surprised at how many pretenders pop up in situations like that while we laugh together. They feel freed in my presence and I'm happy to liberate them. I tell my kids right in front of the Boy Scout recruiter that they only allow stupid kids there because they beleive in the imaginary man in the sky. When a hospital or doctor's office asks which faith, I tell them we don't suffer from that neurological disorder. I even go so far as to say "no thank you" when someone says god bless you. I refer in public to the pledge of allegiance as the bastard catholic pledge of the McCarthy era. I'd say I've received much more respect than disdain and I feel it's about time the sane people took control of the asylum.

Anonymous said...

JK, you;re in idiot

Anonymous said...

Who's JK? Wrong blog? John Kerry?