Next Show: ...loading...

Odds and Ends

October 4, 2007

Audio Archive
Democratic Congress Passes Bill to Make Blackwater and Other U.S. Mercenary Warriors Subject to Prosecution!
The Fired Prosecutors Refused to Fix Elections!
More Evidence Anita Hill was Right
John McCain’s “Christian Nation”
Hillary Clinton and the Nation’s Nostalgia for Bill

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Robt October 11, 2007 3:55 am

    Ron Paul is an articulate man and says what he seems to mean. Very refreshing.
    I do in fact like his candidness and his apparent
    honesty. He does not answer with those generic generalized answers designed for a politician to speak words and say nothing.
    I have toadmit I approve of his Iraq occupation stance and what he proposes for the most on our future in Iraq if he wins the Presidency, juxtaposed to Bill Richardson that is near the same on withdrawing from Iraq imediately and fully.
    It is almost unrealistic at this point with Iraq because just to pull out with take at least a year if done orderly. But I truely agree with the sentiment that I interpret as, “getting out as swift as possible and leaving with dignity and some stability in the coutry behind us”.
    Yet for Ron Paul,
    There is really no government in his end dreamor at least very little. It would be too little to preserve, enforce or defend our constitution from within.
    I owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude for his influence on the GOP Primary so far. He has a been much greater influence than his counterpart in the Dem Primary ,Mike Gravel. But you see how the GOP treats him? They won’t nominate Ron. Even if he gets money support and enough votes.
    I don’t think there will be an FDA if Ron Paul could have his way. And just maybe he would privatize the judges and courts. You know, the highest bidder.
    The man does speak to you and not at you, considerate and respectful. In a politician?
    Do you agree on Ron Paul’s stance on immigration?
    My biggest disagreement with Ron Paul would be his foresight of an eden with a lack of law and order in our country.
    One unclear issue with Ron Paul I have is that he has clearly expressed his vision of Americas non presence in the world. I agree with him that we never should have ventured into Iraq and spent our military forces, our nations wealth and resources on Iraq and not on the terrorists that attacked us and are still out there plotting.
    Where I might think America’s intervention(s) into Genociding nations, handled properly, would be within our obligation in the world or helping with aid as with malaria medication and preventions where possible is the humane thing and good will to build on. He has been a bit vague specifically on this, or I have missed it.
    And your take on Ron Paul?

  • Vicky October 10, 2007 2:16 pm

    Yeah, I know that Ed – I’m just saying the Dems always scream when it’s the Repubs doing it.
    And Robt I don’t trust any of them with their “faith” talk. But no, I don’t think a church is the place for politickin. It stinks – big time.
    What about Ron Paul, Robt? (I’m not sure yet what I think of him – but like quite a bit of what he seems to be about.)

  • Robt October 10, 2007 1:16 pm

    If I recall correctly, Grandpa McCain, Great- grandpa Fred and Mr 9/11-Rudy have already gone to Pat Robertson’s holy grail and put on the robe to perform to what is called, “the religious right”. Repubs checked in with the Dobson (but not his church goers). So the claim that,
    ” The Republicans wouldn’t get away with this trick would they?” is misconcieved.
    The Republican candidates have had many fund raisers at various churches along the way. One in which in Florida with Duncan Hunter, as Ann Coulter was at his adoring side, supported him and made lewd accusations of the left at this church function.
    I have to hand it to Coulter, she has now come out explaining why females should not vote. Farting in small crowded unventilated rooms is her forte. Must be Ann’s concern that Hillary is getting the female vote and she wants to change the rules like the Repubs tried in Calif over the lectorial votes in the state to go by district that repubs might have a upper edged chance without their electability. Putting the “Con” in conservative perhaps.
    I actually feel sorry for what the churches have allowed politicians to do to them and what it could very well mean in their future. That is another story.
    Is there a big organization titled “the religious left”?
    Does it bother you that Obama or Edwards would have faith and believe in it ? Or is something only a politician on the right of the spectrum can use, apply, display, or actually profess & live?
    I do know the “Faith Based Initiative” is wrong and I would be very surprised if certain sects of Bush’s selective (voter promising) religions recieves more Faith Based funding money than the others.
    That is what I would consider the Government promoting religion. For selfish reasons.
    One thing that is remarkably resonable from our founding fathers is, ” there shall be no religious test for President”.
    Very smart them founding fathers, indeed.
    If you strapped me down and waterboarded me with electrodes attached to my privates (turned up the
    amps). Even I might have limitations and you could possible get me to vote for Huckabee. I don’t see enough posssitives in the other Repub candidates.
    If any one would like to point out some Repub andidate(s) attributes, I would be more than willing to hear them out.?

  • Ed from NY October 10, 2007 10:07 am

    Republicans campaign in churches too. Heck, I even vote in a church. I don’t have a problem with it but I wonder if others do. “Separation of Church and State” does not mean that politicians can’t come to churces and ask for votes, just like they can go anywhere else.
    Separation of Church and State means that the State cannot impose a religion on someone, through a government-written prayer or government-endorsing of religion or government funding of churches or church programs. It also means that the State cannot control Church doctrine.