pleonast.com want to really change the world? [login]
	beckye2 The lesser of two evils is still evil - Ralph Nader entry list galleries		Hypocrite 02-08-08 02:52pm EST 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings Are you a hypocrite? Do decry you others actions and then turn around only to do basically the same thing? madeah Are you on a soapbox or something?  turner120995 Did you know that you can rearrange the letters and get "itchy pore"? Just thought that you would like to know. :-)  login to comment hide comments Interesting 01-25-08 09:54am EST I work in NC but live in SC. Tomorrow is the Dem's primary. So of course, there was a discussion at work last night. It was amazing to watch who voiced supported Hillary/Obama/Edwards- take that back Hillary/Obama. No one cares about the Breck Girl. The over 40 are pro Hillary (Oscar is from Mexico and loves her so I guess the Mexican votes are going to her also), the rest of the crew is Obama. Most of these are under 35, first time voters. I have already said while I don't agree with his political views, I like his personality and I understand why people are for him. I would have voted for him when I was in college. Come to think of it, if McCain gets the Bup nomination, I might just vote for him, jdb1972 Sweetie, "not voting for the lesser evil" isn't the same as "voting for the greater evil."  login to comment hide comments WHAT? 01-16-08 06:08pm EST From Hickabee "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." If God wanted a government to enforce his word, He would have a) stuck with the Old Law where religon and secular law were intertwined and b) ruled on Earth instead of establishing a spiritual kingdom which we are to strive towards. terryfrancis So we should not care whether our laws enforce moral truths?  jdb1972 Whose morals? Beck's, mine, yours, Huck's, Hillary's, Achmed the Muslim's? Once you go beyond the bare "Keep your hands to yourself" morals necessary to have a peaceful society, you invite warfare.  terryfrancis Let's follow this logic of no morality in law. Then let's legalize prostitution, legalize all forms of abortion, legalize all drinking regardless of age, etc. That's certainly not the type of country I want to raise my children in. Also, the beauty of a Constitutional Amendment process is that it allows the majority to set the moral standard. So in that sense, yes it would be the morals of Beckye, you, me, Huck, Hillary, and Achmed. It would be the collection of our morals as they come together.  terryfrancis As to your comments on my page. I doubt you would disagree with Huckabee's idea of a Biblical Constitution. I don't think it would include amendments on baptism. But I also fail to think that if Jesus had the ability to influence government with his morals and principles that he would have refused.  terryfrancis And by ability, I do mean that he was in a position of political influence and power. Not forcing it through divine intervention.  jdb1972 You can follow your logic of "no morality in law." Mind you, you won't find anything that remotely resembles what I was talking about, but you could do it. Me, I prefer to avoid straw men. The simple fact is that one should never argue in favor of investing power in government he is not prepared to have used against him. You can't legislate people into goodness. You can't keep people from destroying themselves if they're bent on doing it. You can't keep people from doing all forms of evil and force them to do good. In fact, you'll usually accomplish the exact opposite of your aim. In order to enforce more than a minimal morality, you'll need to heavily consolidate power. Power attracts those least qualified to wield it: the wicked, the greedy, the ambitious. Consolidated power will almost never be used for righteousness, but to harm it.  jdb1972 And then there's the fallout. Prohibition brought about Al Capone and the other mobsters without even slowing the consumption of alcohol. Drug prohibition has caused the near-destruction of Columbia and other countries, the rise of the cartels, the murder of thousands, etc. while only barely slowing the flow of drugs. Prostitution is still a million-dollar business. Would the alternative be better? Quite possibly. Could it be worse? Maybe. But it's certain that the current system is a boon to criminals with incredible costs to innocents. History teaches us that, with few exceptions, the best we can do is to force people to leave others alone and punish them when they don't. And even that's a dicey proposition.  jdb1972 You just can't build heaven on earth. Come look out my study window if you want to see how that winds up.  terryfrancis Wow. So the way to stop prostitution is to legalize it. The way to stop abuse of alcohol is to allow anyone to use it. The way to stop drug use is to allow it. Just wow.  jdb1972 Reading comprehension is your friend.  terryfrancis That's what the end result of your position is. The things I listed have nothing to do with "keeping your hands to yourself". So they do reflect your position. The reality is that we should not be fearful of such governed morality. Am I fearful that an amendment defining marriage would be used against me? No. In some ways, we can use the government and even the constitution to promote Godly standards. And if you think my comments are intended to "build heaven on earth" then it is you my friend that need to use reading comprehension. :)  jdb1972 And the actual result of the current system is exactly as I outlined above: deaths of thousands, criminals prospering, the behaviors not even close to being stopped. In other words, the exact opposite of the stated intention. When I do something that produces the exact opposite of my desired outcome, I start to look for alternatives. Not everything that is immoral must be illegal, and not everything that is illegal must be illegal at the federal level. We underestimate the power of social sanction and overestimate the competence and beneficence of government when we believe otherwise. Free people should always be careful - yes, even fearful - with the power they grant government, Christians perhaps most of all. As far as heaven on earth, that's pretty obviously Huck's aim, just as it was Bakker's. I can buy you're just an enabler, though. Janette would put the smack down on you if you turned millenial on us. :)  terryfrancis I think the real problem is not the system or the laws but rather the enforcement of the laws. The negative results of the current system aren't because the laws aren't good but rather because the rulers aren't enforcing them. If judgment was swifter, then perhaps they would be more effective. That is the greater problem. No matter what system and laws is in place, as long as we fail in the application of it nothing will work as it should.  jdb1972 Poor enforcement is the reality. It's what happens when we pass laws significantly stricter than our culture. Seems to me it's the culture that needs changing more than anything else. You don't do that by passing laws... and you certainly can't pass Constitutional amendments without that first. Incidentally, exactly how many amendments is the Huckster up to now? Last time I looked, it was 5 or 6...  jdb1972 And back to Beckye's original point: Huck seems to have had a fundraiser hosted by one of the Christian Reconstructionist leaders last month. He needs to disavow this group quickly - just as quickly as Paul needed to disavow Stormfront.org's support or Hillary did Norman Hsu. Why? Because his statement above sounds a lot like their screwy politics/theology. Among their beliefs are voluntary slavery, stoning for homosexuality and the like, condemnation of democracy as heresy, and the like. Theonomy and Dominionism, all rooted in Calvinism and millenialism.  jdb1972 Nevermind about the amendments. Looks like he's back down to 4, now that he's ditched the federal smoking ban. And just in time to campaign in the South. What a remarkable coincidence! ;)  login to comment hide comments So explain the difference to me? 01-15-08 02:55pm EST Saturday I vote in primary. I plan to vote for Fred because I believe he would make the best leader for our country. I doubt he will win over all and I am betting that the for president my choices will be Huckabee and Obama. If that happens I pray Bloomberg runs. Given however, Huckabee and Obama- why would I voted for one over the other? Both are basically the same just different jerseys- one red and one blue. Personally, I find Obama more likable than Hickabee (no not a typo). Until I am forced to make that choice- Go Fred. jdb1972 Huckabee = religious leftist, Obama = secular leftist. Both would be perfectly happy to tax, spend, and regulate us to death.  cbaird This has definitely been an interesting year!  login to comment hide comments It is the most wonderful day of the year! 01-03-08 02:28pm EST Preschool started back today and both kids went. They have been full of energy and wanting (help me, I am tired, I am bored, etc) for the past week. They enjoyed seeing all their friends. sutherngirl even better than the first day of school? :)  cbaird Hannah was excited to get back to school too. She said she missed her friends and her teacher. :o)  login to comment hide comments 5 >>   25 >>   >>>