Jo-Joe Politico: IT'S OLD, BUT IT'S GOOD. HERE I STAND. I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE

Monday, February 22, 2010

IT'S OLD, BUT IT'S GOOD. HERE I STAND. I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE

42 comments:

sue said...: Wow - Can't argue with that (maybe one or two parts.); February 22, 2010 at 3:02 AM
Joe said...: Sue: One or two parts? Interesting.; February 22, 2010 at 9:26 AM
ablur said...: I don't know how I missed it. That was the first time I had heard that. I used to listen to Carmen all the time. Guess I need to go back and look at what some of my favorite artists are doing.

Thanks for pointing this out.; February 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Joe said...: ablur: Actually this is fairly old, but it is nonetheless good.; February 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Shaw Kenawe said...: I watched it, and the only question I have is:

Why does that video imply that God is NOT in America?

After all, "In God We Trust" is on all our money, something just about every person in this country touches and uses just about every day.

Also, when school kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance, they say "...one nation UNDER GOD, indivisible..."

Every town I've every been to in this country has at least one church, and many have several Christian churches, a synagogue, and other places of worship that are tax free and free to preach its version of the word of God as it sees fit.

I also can find several channels on my teevee and radio that broadcast every day over the public airways, programs preaching the word of Jesus. And this is happening every day of every week.

Any American citizen is free to pray to his or her God in his or her home, driving on the way to work, at work, at school, in the park--actually anywhere. In fact, if an American citizen wants to, he or she can stand on any street corner with Bible in hand and preach any of the verses in that Bible, without any interference from the government. I see this quite often when I stroll around major cities in this country.

BTW, did you know that of all the modern western democracies, the United States of America is the MOST religious? We're more religious than any of our allies--including Japan.

Every session of Congress begins with a blessing from a major religion.

The president and other members of Congress swear their oaths of office on a Bible, and say the words "...so help me God..." after speaking the oath [it is not required by the Constitution, but it is said out of tradition].

Any student is free to pray silently to herself before a test, lunch, or school sport. There would never be any government interference to stop a silent prayer. There are even Christian and other religious clubs that are allowed to use public school facilities for their club meetings.

As I see it, we are free to practice our religions anywhere and any time we so desire.

I think the video forgets that when children were praying in public schools in the ‘50s and ‘60s and earlier, we also experienced in this country, at the same time, men, women, and children being treated as second class citizens--in fact they were denied their Constitutional rights--because of their skin color. Some were even murdered, and those responsible for those murders were never brought to justice--and those murderers considered themselves God-fearing Christians whose children were praying in public schools at the time those atrocities were committed. Also, when children were praying in public schools, people in this country demonized and made life miserable for homosexuals --forced our gay brothers and sisters to stay in the closet or be subjected to the worst possible hatred. Allowing children to pray in public schools didn’t stop people in this country from killing and demonizing those American citizens who were minorities. In fact, once we adhered to the Constitution and stopped prayers in public school, we began treating our African-American citizens equally, and, we are now reaching out to our gay citizens and accepting them as full citizens as well.

One other thing: I understand that a lot of Christians do NOT want their children to be taught sex education in public school, preferring that they themselves take on that responsibility and not have the government teaching their children the facts of life. Why then, would these same people want the government involved in the very personal family tradition of praying? Shouldn’t religious traditions, prayers, Bible readings, etc., be kept within the sanctity of one’s family life or private religious school and not be brought into the government run public schools? Why would these people want the one [school prayer] and not the other [biological sex education]?; February 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Trekkie4Ever said...: I will never tire of that song. So true. This nation needs Jesus plain and simple.; February 22, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Joe said...: SK: "Shouldn’t religious traditions, prayers, Bible readings, etc., be kept within the sanctity of one’s family life or private religious school and not be brought into the government run public schools?"

That's probably why George Washington began every public/government meeting with prayer. He probably did not know any better.

That's probably why the congress has a long history of beginning with prayer. They probably didn't know any better.

That's probably why for over 200 years every public school started its day with prayer, the Pledge of Allegience and the National Anthem. They probably didn't know any better.

That's probably why preaching on street corners was allowed in virtually every city in the U.S. until less than 60 years ago. They probably didn't know any better.

As for the race thing, it was a dispicable aspect of American life that schools were segregated for so long.

People like George Wallace, of Alabama, a Democrat, faught to keep them segregated.

People like Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat, opposed the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown vs Board of Education.

People like James Eastland, Democrat who preceeded Ted Kennedy said BvsBoE would bring down the country, and also opposed it.

People like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., with whom I marched in St. Augustine, FL., in 1964, a Republican, fought to get them integrated.

Ah, well. There's probably no straight line reasoning on the matter to be expected from a liberal.; February 22, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Shaw Kenawe said...: Dr. King did not register with ANY political party. His own children have said that if he did, he would have been a Democrat. To say he was a Republican is a lie.

In a statement released through the King Center published in an AP article in July 2008 at http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/07/05/kingrepublicans.html, Martin Luther King III said, "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African-American votes in Florida and many other states."

And as for your George Washington comment: As the first president of the US lay dying, he never called for a minister of the Faith to be there. No minister was at his death bed, at his request.

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.

When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."

Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia.

Source

As for your references to the "Democrats" in the south? They were all CONSERVATIVE Democrats, who, upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act abandoned the Democratic Party, and the South became solidly Republican.

President Johnson prophetically said as he signed the Civil Rights Act, that the Democrats would lose the South. He was correct.

Do you have an explanation for this?

BTW, Ronald Wilson Reagan called the Civil Rights Act an "insult to the south."

And Republican John McCain fought tooth and nail on the state and federal level AGAINST a Martin Luther King holiday.

All of this is verifiable on the internet.

It's not a good idea to throw stones at the Democrats while the Republicans are living in glass houses.

I tried to engage in a reasonable discussion on the elements of the video you posted.

Instead of a discussion, you threw out talking points, some of which were incorrect.

You're obviously not interested in a reasonable discussion, just in finding people who agree with your premises.

Good luck.; February 22, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Joe said...: SK: Where did you get the idea that we don't have many of George Washington's writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs?

He wrote: "No country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings…Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were to neglect the means and depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass."

and:

"The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far…to forsake us in the midst of it…We may now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path.”

and:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are."

and:

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

and:

"The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."
I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion."

and:

"I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend."

Do you want some more? I can supply them.

As for Dr. King as a Republican being a lie, could it not be that historical sources differ on the point, making it not a lie but a matter of disagreement and for discussion? Does that ever occur to a liberal?

Historian, Frances Rice: "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s neice Dr. Alveda C. King stated,
"My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or "Daddy King", was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican."

As for his voting record, the fact that "there is no evidence" is testament to the fact that in America we practice the secret ballot.

There is no evidence that I have ever voted Rebublican, either.

It IS true that Dr. King did not register with either Party, which would have prevented him from voting in some states' primary elections.

I appreciate that you presented what you consider to be evidence to back up your point of view, but as is usual with liberals, you cannot keep from slipping into the mode of attack.

"...just in finding people who agree with your premises."

Pardon me, Ms. SK, but are we not having a discussion here? Do you agree with my premises? I don't think so.

Why are you so unable to have a discussion without becoming beligerant? Is that a liberal characteristic or just a bent of yours, personally?; February 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Shaw Kenawe said...: Sorry, Joe, but it is you who characterizes my answers as "beligerent." There is no "tone of voice" in typed words. Could it be that you apply your prejudiced feelings toward liberals to my typed words?

BTW: I would take the testimony of Dr. King's son over his niece.

The facts are that the conservative Democrats of the old South were pro-slavery and anti-abolitionists. There were liberal Democrats in the north who supported the abolistionists and were anti-slavery.

It is foolish to try to put these people into a narrow box, because it is also a fact that there were conservative Republicans who did not join with abolitionists.

As for George Washington, could you explain why, if he were such a devout Christian, he never went to church and at his death, did not call for a minister? That seems an odd behavior for someone who brought God into his speeches. Could it be he did so because he knew a lot of colonists were believers?

You perceive me as attacking you? Why? Presenting other facts is not an attack, it is simply presenting other facts. Unless you feel threatened by more information and see that as beligerence. As I said, there is no beligerence in typed words, only the prejudices you bring to the reading therein.

If you go back to my original comment that was related to the video, there is no attack in my comments. I simply asked questions, nonconfrontationally, about why the maker of the video think that this country isn't godly.

One could say that you ignored all of my points and were rude to me in doing so.

But I won't go there.; February 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM
sue said...: I have material that states that the Founding Fathers were not all die hard Christians.

There is an exclusiness in the song that I don't believe in. Not all Americans are Christians.

It sounds like something out of the past - times change and issues have to be dealt with fairly.

People are people and if they are Americans they have rights too.

I believe in God and I am a Christian, but we need to include those who aren't.; February 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Susannah said...: Wow. Carmen always did have a flare for the dramatic, didn't he? (My personal favorite was "The Champion.")

"Why does that video imply that God is NOT in America?"
Because of something called the ACLU - who has sued my county for having 'sectarian' prayer @ county commissioner's meetings - thus removing the right of Christian pastors to pray 'in Jesus' name' @ their meetings (mind you, no other religions were restricted thusly), has sued around the country for having 10 Commandments on Gov'mt buildings (laws must be based on kind of rule, would you rather Hamurabi's Code?), for having nativity in a public place, for prayer in school, for singing Christmas carols @ Christmas...but not for the boxes of literature on Islam & Muslim activism that I accidentally found in a teacher's lounge several year's ago, see?

I could go forever-and-a-day on this but Shaw would probably cry foul, as forever-&-a-day cannot be quantified in words typed on a page, & she wouldn't be able to tell by my 'tone' if I was using metaphor, or really would try to go on - truly forever-&-a-day, in which case she would probably get ticked, b/c my comment would be longer than hers --- by a sentence or two.

(Hiya, Shaw - I've been out for a while. Glad to see you're still at it!)

Joe, Carmen & Leticia said it, & didn't Ann Graham Lotz write a book entitled Just Give Me Jesus ? Man, am I with her! Amen!; February 22, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Joe said...: SK: "...at his death, did not call for a minister?"

What has that to do with anything? I have been on what everybody thought was my death bed, and I did not call for my pastor. Why should I? He would have been there for my wife had I died, and that is what is important. If I am dying, why do I need a particular type of person with me, other than my wife and family?

That's seems very strange to me.

In fact, I don't know of a person I have met in 50 years of ministry who has "called for" his/her minister on his/her death bed.

You choose the son, others choose the niece...to which of them was MLK closer? I can't say.

Regardless of which he was, he was one of my heros during my college years, and although I never got close enough to him to shake his hand, I got close to many who were marching with him and sitting in at the local lunch counter. They did not talk like what I knew as Democrats.

But you are undoubtedly much wiser than I. I'm sure you think so, anyway.; February 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM
Joe said...: Sue: "Founding Fathers were not all die hard Christians."

That's a true statement by some measures, but if you follow my Sunday blogs you know that most of them professed Christianity and none of them would have dreamed of excluding the Christian message from the public arena, including political meetings, high school football games (Yeah, yeah, I know football hadn't been invented yet), or any other place.

Here's the thing: I've been studying the writings of the founding fathers for over 50 years, and I am convinced by their words that they founded this country on Judeo/Christian principles and would be dismayed to think that we had moved from those principles in the name of "inclusiveness." They would NEVER have been exclusionists, but would have invited "outsiders" to come one in and enjoy the party. But they would not have changed the nature of the party to do it.

Frankly, I don't understand why there has arisen such a hue and cry about it.

They did what they did and some people don't like what they did and want to change it.

That is exceedingly sad, totally unneccessary and will put an end to the idea Lincoln had that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.; February 22, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Joe said...: Susannah: We're on the same page. "The Champion" ALWAYS brings tears of joy to my eyes.; February 22, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Z said...: as we've been trying to take God OUT of America, one can see such a decline in morality and the kind of 'good' our forefathers said was needed in gov't (and capitalism)in order for it to succeed, that I'd have to agree with the singer....
Also, your title is a Martin Luther quote! I like it :-); February 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM
Joe said...: Z: I don't know how many noticed that. Good job.; February 23, 2010 at 7:26 AM
Ciao Baby said...: It seems like when ever Shaw gets backed up against the wall, she quotes another Commie. This time it's Martin Luther King the Commie,

Say, when was the last time we all joined hands as a nation and sang a round of Kum Ba Yah?; February 23, 2010 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I think Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a communist/muslim that is working against our country in the long run… I do not trust him as far as i could throw him
Thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, the country has emerged strongly on two sides: group-thinkers and independent thinkers. And what I’ve found amazing is how the main-stream media has revealed themselves for the LIARS that they are, for the instruments of continued group-think that they are. And they have no shame about being found out.

And Shaw Kenawe seems to fin in perfectly with the group of LIARS Or can it be that she is so nieve that she can't tell the Just to make it clear for you Shaw Kenawr, Democracy is the opposite of a Dictatorship, and communism is the opposite of capitalism.

Communism is a system of organization where the state owns everything (sort of what Obama is din the process of doing now), and wealth is distributed among the people as the state sees fit. In America, our brand of democracy features capitalism, a social system based on private ownership where distribution, production, and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.
What Obama says about change and the American dream could be an underlayment for socialism and communism. Change from a democracy is evident and having it so every one can be the same is a no brainer also.
Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

Well, all I’ve got to say is the liberal better wake up and soon. They will be on the outside looking in, just as us conservatives will be when Big Brother Government takes it all over.
Of all the posts in here, I have to agree with Z, Albur, and you Joe... we don’t have a monopoly on standing up and fighting, but we can see the wrong that’s being done to the country we all love..
We all better survey the situation and the way the world is headed and vote wisely and Obama isn’t the right way.
Thanks and I don’t apologize for my feeling to anyone. Shaw and her buddies Truth and TAO can call me all the names that they wish too.But, I love God and I love my country and hate to see either trodden on. And I will continue to fight for her.

Thank you Joe, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be heard on your blog.; February 23, 2010 at 9:13 AM
JJPuke said...: I agree, that the liberal American arrogance will be our downfall. Thinking we can't fail, no matter what, will make us not make the changes that need to be made. We should be cutting entire government agencies and the size of government at all levels.
We need to throw out every democrat in office and recycle them.

Every Democratic politician should submit their resignations and apologize to the American people for doing such a poor job. If they don't quit then they should be removed from office as soon as possible.

No Democratic incumbent should be relected.; February 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Lynne said...: "No Guts Joe" is at it again.

Well "No Guts", Health Care is going to happen, like it or not!; February 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Lisa said...: Well "No Guts", Health Care is going to happen, like it or not!

In layman's terms " Obama is going to shove this down our throats whether we like it or want it"
After all he has to follow through with his part of the bargain to the SEIU thugs.
It has nothing to do with he is all caring about us.
He is doing all he can to make us less competitive in the world and our great health care system is one of those things.
I will quote a question an audience member asked at CPAC "Do you think Obama is managing the decline if tis country"
Answer-Most definitely.

Right is Right -Very profound and factual.

Group think is very destructive.
And either the liberals are willingly advocating our demise or they have too much invested in "Hope and Change".
They probably don' even know that "Hope and Change is a direct quote out of the communist manifesto.
I guess they don't care who is driving the bus ,even if it is of a cliff,as long as they don't have to bother doing the driving themselves.; February 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Joe said...: Ciao Baby: She does get in a snit, doesn't she?

RiR: I don't object to being called names, I do it to myself at times. I DO object to vile vulgarities and delete commenters who use them, liberals or conservatives. SK has come close a couple of times.

JJPUKE: I don't think we can afford to hold our breaths until all Democrats resign.

Lynne: I believe I can document my guts as being superior to yours any day of the week and twice on a warm Saturday afternoon. I put mine out for everyone to see, while you hide behind the no-blog fence.

lisa: President BO will go down in history as the one who did more to prevent this country from being what it was designed to be than any other president. Unless, of course, he confiscates and re-writes the history books.; February 23, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Shaw Kenawe said...: Joe typed: "RiR: I don't object to being called names, I do it to myself at times. I DO object to vile vulgarities and delete commenters who use them, liberals or conservatives. SK has come close a couple of times."

RiR wrote: "And Shaw Kenawe seems to fin in perfectly with the group of LIARS..."

You know, Joe, your blog could be a place where people could come and discuss differences. Then I read what you wrote about me--that you believe I come close to vile vulgarities? Go read all of my posts on this comment thread and see in black and white that I NEVER came close to vile vulgarities. Not even close.

Then read your pal RiR, and how she says I "fin"[sic] in perfectly with a group of LIARS.

You're like the rest of your pals, Joe. You protect the people who agree with you, while they "come close" to calling me a LIAR, and you accuse me of being close to vile vulgarity when all you or anyone need do is read my comments here and see that the truth is I DO NOT COME CLOSE TO VILE VULGARITY, as most certainly your PAL RiR did to me.

You people don't even understand how hypocritcal you are when it's right in front of your eyes.

My first comment here was entirely nonconfrontational and only asked questions. You turned it into a partisan quarrel.

I give up.

There is no reason to try to have a dialog with people so blind to reality and the truth.

RiR implies I'm a liar, and you say nothing.

I don't engage in anything near that sort of calumny and you tell her I've come close to "vile vulgarities?"

Not only is that a bald faced lie, but it is a delusion.

My words here are my evidence.

RiR's words about me are hers.

I'm outta here.; February 23, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Shaw Kenawe said...You know, Joe, your blog could be a place where people could come and discuss differences. Then I read what you wrote about me--that you believe I come close to vile vulgarities? Go read all of my posts on this comment thread and see in black and white that I NEVER came close to vile vulgarities. Not even close.

Then read your pal RiR, and how she says I "fin"[sic] in perfectly with a group of LIARS.

You're like the rest of your pals, Joe. You protect the people who agree with you, while they "come close" to calling me a LIAR, and you accuse me of being close to vile vulgarity when all you or anyone need do is read my comments here and see that the truth is I DO NOT COME CLOSE TO VILE VULGARITY, as most certainly your PAL RiR did to me.

Come close? You surpass him by a mile! What you are saying is exactly what you are doing... with YOUR pals.; February 23, 2010 at 7:20 PM
Piss and Honey said...: We'll miss you, Shaw, and anyone else who speaks with reason.; February 23, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Joe said...: SK: I did not design my blog to be a place where people could come and discuss their differences. I am happy TO discuss differences when the situation demands it, but my blog was designed as the place where I give you my slightly quirky opinion, and you can give me yours, as long as you're man or woman enough to be civil and control your language.

In other words, I say what I think and you can tell me what you think about what I think, but not about what others who express themselves on my blog think.

You are welcome here any time. Notice that I have deleted several commenters' comments because they WERE nasty...some conservative, some liberal. But I have not deleted your comments.; February 23, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Joe said...: SK: "RiR implies I'm a liar, and you say nothing."

I did not see the comments until tonight. I have been busy today saving my good friend's life.

Sorry you didn't want me to do that.; February 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Shaw Kenawe said...: I hope your friend survives. Really. I wish him/her well.; February 23, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Shaw Kenawe said...: All you can do is sit there and call people with valid concerns racist, or haters, or whatever else your pea brain can think of.--Dark Wolf

This is a outrageous lie.

I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread where I called anyone a racist or a hater.

Therefore, since you have not told the truth about my comments here, why should I or anyone else believe a word of what you've said in the rest of your comment.; February 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM
Dark Wolf said...: I thought you left and said good bye? And I say good riddance.; February 24, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Shaw Kenawe said...: "Fools never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." --T. B. Reed; February 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on, any other foolish thing you have to say without those asinine quotes!. I just has the displeasure of visiting your blog... Was I shocked at the outrageous things you had to say about Dick Cheney, Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, no I wasn't it was so typical of you nutcases to go to war against private citizens that have opinions and are outspoken. You'd rather go down with the likes of a DICTATOR Marxist like Obama. These left's little knees tremble at the the thought. Honesty and integrity scare the left more that anything, and the thought of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin has them scared to death...in spades.; February 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Joe said...: The following is an edited version of Dark Wolf's published comments. I have edited them to bring them into the baoundaries of good taste required by my blog. What I have left in does not equal tacet agreement with or disagreement with what he has to say.

Dark Wolf said...

I really can't believe some of the comments I see from the likes of Shaw Kenya. You need to liberate your mind and start to think for yourself instead of drinking from the kool-aid news called the main stream media...oh opps I mean lame stream media. All you can do is sit there and call people with valid concerns racist, or haters, or whatever else your pea brain can think of. If you were educated in the least bit you would see that what Obama and the government are trying to do. This is the start of a nightmare that our children will have to live with forever. I don't anything from our government. I want them to leave the people alone and let us do what we have done for years.

Whether or not you want to believe it, Barack Obama is a SOCIALIST.

Do you understand that under socialism, you no longer own anything? Please look up the definition of Socialism if you're still unsure of what is being discussed here. I'll be here when you get back.

Socialism is one of the greatest threats against our unique American freedoms that exists. Socialism is only one small step away from communism. Go ask any Russian, Venezuelan, or Cuban immigrants that you can what it's like living under communism. After you've asked them then decide for yourself (we get to do that in a free society) if you want us to step in that direction via socialism. Ask yourself what the world will be like under socialism once the last bastion of individual liberty is gone.

Some people would not recognize socialist, communist, marxist or a left wing radical if they met them on the street...

The schools do not teach the children of the harm such ideas when ensconced into a free market society can cause...

I would rather die on my feet , then serve on my knees...

I am to old to accept the New World according to the definitions of the Leftist in charge....

I like my freedom, I believe in taking responsibility for my actions.
I want to choose what is right for me...

Federal Government has no right in my life their duties are laid out in the Constitution and yet they refuse to do what their duties are, instead they take and they take more and more Power and it is time for the States to cowboy up and say enough!; February 24, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: That’s great, Joe. I’m glad my posting was suitable. And by putting the information in your own words rather than deleting it.

Since "liberal" has such a bad connotation, the liberals have intentionally replaced "liberal" with "progressive."
After reading your blog, I was extremely pleased with what you said.
As a veteran of Vietnam, I saw the parallel myself between it and Iraq when Bush decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and save the world from WMD. It was a necessary situation that had to be done.; February 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Shaw Kenawe said...: To The Dark Wolf:

You criticize me for the right to criticize people like Beck and Limbaugh, and then you call the president of the United States a Marxist?

Really. Do you understand how silly that is?

I. DID. NOT. CALL. ANYONE. A NAME. ON THIS BLOG.

Jo Joe Politico, I tried to have a lively discussion, and all I got was this guy Dark Wolf who lied about what I said.

Good luck to all of you. Really. I mean that.

PS. Did you notice the fact that SCott Brown voted with the president?

I'm from Massachusetts. It was a wake-up call for us Democrats when he took over Teddy's seat.

But I'm very pleased to see that Scott Brown had the guts to vote his conscience, and not be intimidated by the tea party.

Dark Wolfe's attack on me is uncalled for. I said nothing disrespectful about him. Nothing.

Joe, I hope you use your intelligence to see this truth.; February 24, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Susannah said...: (Joe~ shhhhhh....don't tell anyone, but I think somebody said that BHO is a Marxist! Can you just believe it??); February 24, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Ok, then Shaw Kenawe, let me call you a liar and a BS artist and a cry-baby and get DarkWolf off the hook.
It's no secret, everyone on the blogs know it!; February 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM
Shaw Kenawe said...: A Guy From Brooklyn wrote:

Ok, then Shaw Kenawe, let me call you a liar and a BS artist and a cry-baby and get DarkWolf off the hook.
It's no secret, everyone on the blogs know it!

Classy blog you've got here, Joe. I thought you didn't allow name-calling.

BTW, Guy from Brooklyn, the fact that you have to stoop to calling me names makes me proud and actually I'm doubled over laughing at you because your attack on me reinforces what I already know: the fact that you have no other tools in your puny little box with which to engage me.

Those with the least amount of talent have to use school yard taunts and name-calling.

It reflect on you, Brookly Guy, not me. Excuse me while I fall over laughing.

Oh, and thank you for exposing your little self. Now we can all see how inadequate you most definitely are.

Heh.; February 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM
Joe said...: OK! OK! OK! That's enough attacking each other. Let's focus on attacking ideas and specifics, not people!

OK?

Got it?

If people need attacking, I'll do it myself.; February 26, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Susannah said...: Joe you're so cool!
;); February 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Joe said...: Susannah: You, too.; February 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

There Are But A Few Rules To Follow

1. Absolutely no foul language (including the use of asterisks). If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.

2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.

3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.

4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.

FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:

1. Respect for The Constitution

2. Respect for Life

3. The Smallest Possible Government

4. Individual Responsibility

This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.

You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).

I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.

Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.

Government's job is not to provide things for people, but to provide the opportunity for people to persue the things they want via the vehicles of freedom and responsibility.

FAIR USE

FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.