rtwo

I disagree. I like Paul for some things, not for others. As for your own opinion on who I'd vote for if I "cared about the Constitution", I'll take it for what it's worth... which isn't much.

That is a good point. It is more like someone answering their nation's call, and giving up a good career to do it, as opposed to people whose only ambition was political power. Thompson is hardly some Washington outsider though. Prior to acting, he was a career lobbyist, even representing pro-choice groups. You guys just don't have a good field of candidates this time around. I would think that Romney would be your best choice, but he is mormon. Guiliani would appeal to moderates a lot, but even his kids don't think he should be president. So now Thompson is supposed to be the great white hope, the problem is that he is dull, bores people to death on the stump, and just doesn't seem like his heart is in it. Which is probably why his pole numbers are already dropping. He is like the Republican version of Wesley Clark, a ton of hype surrounding the campaign before he officially announced, then just really never catching on afterwards. Now the one I would come closest to voting for is probably McCain or Guiliani, but I am Democrat, so take that for what its worth. Just the same, I think that the pendulum in this country has swung to the left, and a hard core conservative is going to have a hard time winning next year. Meh. Thompson was a lobbyist and did what lobbyists do. Beyond that, your assessment of him doesn't at all go to what's being said about wanting power. You don't have to be a Washington outsider to want to serve your country. Now, speaking of people wanting power... about Hillary..........

Please, please, please all of you conservatives, vote third party. I will personally contribute to the third party candidate that garners your votes. Please, for the good of the country, vote for a third party candidate!!!! Yeah... 'cuz other than being against everything the Constitution was written -for-, Hillary will be SPECTACULAR for this country.

this is an ignorant comment...they are one in the same battle Armageddon is the meeting of armies from all over the earth in the "Valley of Decision" (Megiddo, outside Jerusalem)...there are multiple vast armies converging on the same place, at the same time: the northern power of "Gog", the western power of the antichrist (also drawing forces from the south), and the "Kings of the East" it's all one massive battle...you're trying to subdivide them in your penchant for strange interpretations of prophecy I would warn against accusing somebody of ignorance when it comes to prophetic writings. There are many views on the subject of interpretation, and a claim that your own view is "obviously" the correct one (which is what you are doing by using the word ignorant) is arrogance rather than instruction.

he is not wrong if he advocates voting your conscience. to me, voting a way i don't want just to keep another side from winning is manipulative and dishonest. i don't have the gall to do that. absolutely we vote our conscience and leave the outcome to God. I disagree, mostly with your assessment of what we're talking about. It's not just keeping the other side from winning (which, again, is a part of strategic voting). If you actively go out and sabatoge the campaign of a candidate with whom you would, in reality, mostly agree, what you are really doing, in effect, is voting for the person you REALLY don't want to win. Because, in the case that we're seeing with Dobson, the effect of his raising a third-party candidate would be simply and only to pull votes away from the Republican nominee. And the effect of this would be to install into the presidency somebody who neither group (Dobson, or those who disagree with him) wants. There's nothing at all manipulative or dishonest being discussed here. Except, perhaps, Hillary herself. (sorry. couldn't resist.)

They can make the attempt. As long as the federal court maintains a constructionist view of the Constitution, those cases will fail, as they ought. If those courts do not maintain this view, a federal ban on gay marriage probably won't pass muster anyway. But, in fact, Fred Thompson is looking at a third (and more correct, from a Liberty viewpoint) idea: To create an amendment barring states from imposing such unions on other states. I guess, my ultimate problem with this whole thing is that gay marriage simply isn't a sticking point for me. I'm opposed to it. I will never honor it, no matter what any state says, and I will never run a business in such a way that would. If the government tries to force -that- on me, then you may get my hackles up. Other than that, I think there are far more important issues to be dealt with, and, as Christians, we need to understand that, no matter what the government, or any state, may say, God Himself defines marriage. A federal ban will do nothing except make other Christians feel comfortable. God doesn't recognize the unions, and by the First Amendment, we cannot be -forced- to recognize them, either. That's enough for me.

Butero: You bet... who could beat Thom and Huck?

And, really, isn't not wanting to be president something we should be looking for in our candidates. I can't remember who said it, but I agree (to paraphrase): Those who seek power do not deserve it.

There was some chatter about the Dobson group running Huckabee as a third-party candidate. Huckabee, God bless him, turned it down flat, saying (rightly) that it would only guarantee a Clinton administration. Huckabee will do what all the candidates should do, and support the will of the people by supporting their chosen candidate.

Assault is assault. The kids who nearly killed a white kid should be prosecuted. Having said that, the school ought to have done something about the white kids with the noose. If you want to be a racist, bigoted jerk, that's your business... but the school isn't the place for it. And, in this case, I should add, a noose on the tree, given the circumstances could (and perhaps should) be viewed, not as free speech, but as a threat against another student. In which case, perhaps the perpetrators of this disgusting bigotry should also have been arrested. But as for the "Jena 6", while there is certainly injustice in this whole issue, compounding the injustice by allowing these kids to get away with nearly killing someone is not the way to solve the problem.

If the Republican party nominates a candidate who will not take a strong pro life commitment, and if the conservatie base votes for the candidate; we as conservatives will suffer grievous long term consequences for that action. This threat has always been made by the "moral majority" and other groups of leadership among the religious conservatives. This is not the first election in which this threat has been made. If we bow to the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, our strength to push our agenda is forever gone. I agree wholeheartedly. There are some core moral issues that must NEVER be compromised and the Right to Life issue is one of those. Based on his position on abortion and other moral issues, I will vote for Fred Thompson in the Republican primary. If he doesn't get the nomination and someone like Rudy Giuliani (who is pro-choice) does, I will vote for a 3rd party candidate...or not vote at all. I may not agree with a candidate on all issues or principles (immigration, healthcare, federal budgets, taxation, and so on) but before I can support a candidate with my vote, there cannot be any compromise on those key moral issues that offends God as I see it...and that runs true regardless of candidate, party or office.

Who cares if it is just referring to the Phreds of the world? It's a dangerous road, and the ease with which this is swallowed is both astounding and frightening.

I have one name for you: George W. Bush. 'nuff said. I'd like to think that intelligent voters will listen to the substance of what's said, as opposed to how many "ums" and "ahs" are involved in saying it.

If the Republican party nominates a candidate who will not take a strong pro life commitment, and if the conservatie base votes for the candidate; we as conservatives will suffer grievous long term consequences for that action. This threat has always been made by the "moral majority" and other groups of leadership among the religious conservatives. This is not the first election in which this threat has been made. If we bow to the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, our strength to push our agenda is forever gone. While I agree on abortion, I'm frustrated by Dobson's stance on Thompson. In essence, Dobson wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thompson rightly says that marriage is and always has been in the purview of the individual state, and that a federal amendment denying the state that power would be granting the fed more power than that which it should be given. Because of this, and for no other real or intelligent reason, Dobson would risk another Clinton administration (meet the new boss, WORSE than the old boss), rather than budge an inch and give the states the freedom they are due. Since I dislike repeating myself, for the rest of my response, I'll simply direct you below, if interested. On Dobson/Thompson: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...2E787C3E9825188 On strategic voting: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...2E787C3E9825188

Right, a democracy we are not. But then, I prefer our form of government to any other. It's really kinda sad though you know. I mean the man only wants to be president! In fairness, John F. Kennedy and many other Presidents, senators, and politicians of all varieties have also called it a democracy. I think this has more to do with expediency than ignorance.

Like anything government, this sort of technology has many positive uses, but can also be abused. The question, since the technology already exists, is whether we trust those who have it to put it only to beneficial use. I suspect that many will assume, since the technology exists at all, that we are all in eminent danger of our every move and conversation being recorded (if it isn't already). I, personally, do not think quite so highly of myself. Lest anyone think I'm taking this "threat' too lightly, understand that I see much of what the federal government does as being suspect. However, I see no motivation at this time for such technology to be used against the general population. An assumption that, because the government has the ability to spy (which they have had for decades), they would use the ability on her constituency is paranoia. Echoes of the wide-spread misinformation regarding wiretapping.

God is unchanging. If the entity to whom you pray doesn't have the attributes of the True God, it isn't the True God. Allah is not the same as our God, because the attributes and disposition of Allah is significantly different from that of Yahweh. That they believe it to be the same god as the God of the Hebrews, or the God of the Christians, doesn't change this singular fact. It's a fine line, at times... but the line is there.

Paranoid: I think you've hit upon a distinction that is often missing in today's Church. Very often, we take Jesus' words to have the same meaning as those others you mentioned. We take it to mean a response of inaction, where Jesus always talked about action. Thanks for the reminder today!

Get your own dirt.

The courts also upheld abortion "rights" as being constitutional, though they have no basis in constitutional law (i.e., there is no constitutional right to privacy), and in fact clearly violate the God-given Right to Life. So, we see, even the Holy and All-Powerful Courts can be dead wrong.

Never mind the fact that the first amendment only prohibits Congress from making laws regarding establishment of religion. The amendment says nothing whatsoever about the state; it's talking about the federal government.

If that were the case, the hate crimes legislation would be unconstitutional. The federal courts have consistently held that it isn't. Why? Because they apply universally. Hate crime legislation based on race does not apply to simply one race, it applies to all. For example, if a african american were killed by a white male simply because he was black, that would be a hate crime. Conversely, if a black male killed a white man simply because he was white, that would be a hate crime. They work both ways. As to being an American, 78% of Americans favor expanding hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation. Only 18% oppose it. It would seem to me that those that are against hate crime laws are the ones that are un-American. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27613 Actually, 68% of those questioned favor expanding to include sexual orientation. 78% favor the legislation as it is currently. I'd say what we're really looking at is that 78% of the people who answered the question the Gallup people asked, and interpreted that way, like most people, swallowed the propoganda regarding the legislation (hate is mean, after all) and fail to look at the ramifications of such legislation.

I'm with Butero here... you don't have to misinterpret this bill to be very, very against it.

that they won't shoot the pigeons? I quite agree. Of course, I think the pigeons are getting off kinda easy...

Good ol' unions... good thing people pay dues so their jobs can be protected!