Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[Mesaclone]

No,  I rather think what walks them out of power is the constant assault against them by the New York Controlled Liberal Democrat media system that portrays them as the second coming of Cotton Mather. 

The media is the enemy, no doubt, but that is not why we lose. As Pericles stated, "I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs." We fail, as a party, of our own accord.


Smash that propaganda system and their actions would just look normal to most of the American people. 








There are some things on which you do not compromise.  Better to just lose outright.
And there are many more that you must compromise on if you exist in a Republic...as system in which one party almost NEVER gets everything it wants. 






"Moderates"  have no "deeply held beliefs".  That's why they are moderate.  Conservatives with deeply held beliefs generally agree on most issues.
And Moral Narcissism rears its ugly head again. Moderate is a description of where someone lies on a political spectrum, not a measure of the passion with which they hold their views. In this, you and many Socons err in their perception of the rest of the party.






And a lot of the time,  it is.   We have a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities.   At some point,  it is going to have very evil consequences.   All further debt weight added to that disaster is effectively condoning future evil.

[Jazzhead]

He means the bible.

No, I don't.  I mean your addled mythology.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you're argument is that your religious views are better than communism. Bravo, I agree.
As for how many have died in the name of religion over the course of the planet's history...well, its almost impossible to measure but its a near certainty that its higher than 100 million.

It is a point for which I have done some research in the past.    It is clear that the Religion of Peace (Islam)  has killed over 100 million people,   but it is also certainly clear that Christianity has killed nothing like this number,   and that's even if you include supposedly religious wars in the total.   


Islam is definitely a religion that is as harmful to life as has been communism,   but it is an outlier.   Most religions do not have nearly so much blood on their hands.   

For the record, I'm a long ways from being an Atheist so I won't disagree that Atheism is an empty and harmful concept.

More so than many people realize.   Some people regard Christianity as an inconsequential force in modern history,   but this is because they have no recollection of what people believed prior to it.   Christianity has shaped the zeitgeist to the point that dissent,  such as from Atheists,   is tolerated instead of being quickly and brutally destroyed as it was when "gods"  were being worshiped.   


The western world floats in an ocean of Christian principles and habits,   and most of us do not realize just how our world view has been formed into it's modern state by Christian principles.   


Even Communism is a bastardization of Christian principles.    It's "share the wealth"  mantra has a direct lineage  from "Equal in the Eyes of God" Christian teachings.   


I think Christianity is what dragged the  Europeans into scientific progress and cultural advancement.    I think it is the lynchpin of Western Civilization,   and we dispose of it at our peril.   

[DiogenesLamp]

But....I thought Liberty was "all or nothing"?

According to the rules of that time period,  it was.    Those rules simply didn't apply to slaves.   


I think Chief Justice Taney said something to the effect that "The Declaration of independence was not comprehended as applying to slaves."   


 

[Mesaclone]

If you want to believe that Liberty and the civil society we once had were built on 'mythology'... who am I to stop you?
All societies are built in part upon their myths. That said, this society was built on the ideas of men like Locke and Jefferson, and the principles of the Enlightenment. The mythos of our ethical and moral symptoms are important, and of course play a role in the shaping of our nation.
 

That mindset goes a great length to explain how a depraved culture can create new 'myths' to build society upon - such as infants in the womb being expendable for the sake of convenience; homosexuals should marry and grown men can self-identify as little girls to use their public bathrooms.  Those are the kind of 'myths' a society that considers the bible to be 'myth' create for themselves as a new morality to be imposed.
Every society has and will continue to create new myths...its human nature, and can bring both good and bad to a nation depending on the myth itself and its underlying ethos.

Everything.  It means that this people look to government to be their god, their healer, their provider and arbiter of fairness and equality.
That is drama queen stuff.

And those are the very ingredients of a society and culture that is enslaved to tyranny without a shred of liberty.  Except the license to engage in whatever their loins and flesh desire at the full cost of someone else that their god decides must pay for the consequences of.
Moral narcissism dressed up like a drag queen. The problem isn't people's "loins and fleshly desires"...apocalyptic and important as that sounds. The problem is poor decisions, poor education, and a general failure amongst our citizens to understand the true principles of Republican government.

[Mesaclone]

It is a point for which I have done some research in the past.    It is clear that the Religion of Peace (Islam)  has killed over 100 million people,   but it is also certainly clear that Christianity has killed nothing like this number,   and that's even if you include supposedly religious wars in the total.   

I agree entirely with that...though I would say your figure of 65000 is way too low to be credible. Nonetheless, there can be no moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam...Islam is vastly more violent in its history and in its current incarnation in much of the world.


Islam is definitely a religion that is as harmful to life as has been communism,   but it is an outlier.   Most religions do not have nearly so much blood on their hands.   





More so than many people realize.   Some people regard Christianity as an inconsequential force in modern history,   but this is because they have no recollection of what people believed prior to it.   Christianity has shaped the zeitgeist to the point that dissent,  such as from Atheists,   is tolerated instead of being quickly and brutally destroyed as it was when "gods"  were being worshiped.

I have heard many views of Christianity, but never that it was "inconsequential" in modern history. 


The western world floats in an ocean of Christian principles and habits,   and most of us do not realize just how our world view has been formed into it's modern state by Christian principles.   


Even Communism is a bastardization of Christian principles.    It's "share the wealth"  mantra has a direct lineage  from "Equal in the Eyes of God" Christian teachings.   


I think Christianity is what dragged the  Europeans into scientific progress and cultural advancement.    I think it is the lynchpin of Western Civilization,   and we dispose of it at our peril.

I would not argue against the utilitarian value of Christianity in Western society...but I would give equal value to Platonic principles of right and wrong and the concepts developed in Pagan Greece/Rome regarding truth, goodness, and humanity. I see the success of the West as stemming from the conjoining of these schools of thought. That is apart from the consideration of Christianity as a mythology or an absolute...either way its principles and the way it was shaped to accommodate much of Greek thought is the secret of the West's supremacy...both morally and in physical terms. IMHO.

[DiogenesLamp]

I DO believe the big things, and easily disregard the little ones. So apparently it IS possible. As a scientific document...well, that's moot because it clearly is not.

It is more so than most people realize.  Years ago I used to keep track of scientific discoveries that confirmed something that the Bible had said years before it was discovered to be true.   


We now know the flood was the consequence of the transition from the Ice age through the big melt.   


Examples abound of the bible speaking on a subject,  and the bible's account on that  subject is later confirmed by archeological evidence to be accurate.



The accounts of the plagues of Egypt have been pretty much explained and confirmed by scientific means,  and it is simply amazing that  such accounts were so accurately (by the standards of the people at that time)  recorded.   

[roamer_1]

Wait...are you saying Jonah actually WAS inside a whale?

YES. If you read more closely, you will understand that he was dead inside the fish.

Or was it that 7.7 million species....times two...more if you count dinosaurs (LOL), actually fit into a boat with sufficient food
and seaworthiness to survive not just a 40 day flood, but the ensuing decades and centuries of water saturated environment?

If you'll read more closely, it doesn't say 'of each species'... It says 'of each KIND'. Genre. Genus.
And the water covered the land for about a year, not decades and centuries.

As I said before it doesn't say what you think it says.

[DiogenesLamp]

The media is the enemy, no doubt, but that is not why we lose. As Pericles stated, "I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs." We fail, as a party, of our own accord.

I think  Ideological monopoly of the Information broadcasting system is the most serious threat that the country currently faces.   

Our representative Republic cannot operate properly if the public cannot find out the information they need to make sensible decisions.    The media does more damage by it's censorship than it does by it's "fake news."   

Our system is based on the premise that all sides will be able to offer their arguments to the public,   but we have nothing like that right now.    We have a constant barrage of propaganda intended to manipulate the public into supporting a liberal agenda.   


The media elected Clinton.   The media elected Barack Obama.   For those two things alone,  they have horribly damaged the nation and the world.   

[Mesaclone]

It is more so than most people realize.  Years ago I used to keep track of scientific discoveries that confirmed something that the Bible had said years before it was discovered to be true.   


We now know the flood was the consequence of the transition from the Ice age through the big melt.   
Pardon my French, but that is ludicrous. There has been much flooding, but the planet has never been covered by a singular flood. There just isn't any scientific evidence to support such an extreme hypothesis. We know how old the planet is, we know very well the timelines of many species existing uninterrupted from a 100,000 years ago up to the present without decreases in their span and population. The myth of the flood came from early societies, like Sumeria and there are many flood myths throughout the Middle East...so no doubt there were vast and severe flooding events (The flooding of the Black Sea basin being a potential such event)...but never a world wide event. That's just not a serious argument.


Examples abound of the bible speaking on a subject,  and the bible's account on that  subject is later confirmed by archeological evidence to be accurate.



The accounts of the plagues of Egypt have been pretty much explained and confirmed by scientific means,  and it is simply amazing that  such accounts were so accurately (by the standards of the people at that time)  recorded.
It is not at all surprising as such myths are generally based on actual events that occurred, much altered over time when passed down as stories in a culture. These people were recounting real wars and societies and cities they encountered, but to take these stories as factual accounts is not credible...it does not mean the stories cannot still convey great meaning and moral teaching, but to take them literally is to set aside reason and common sense.

[INVAR]

Oh, right.  I mean, all I ever do on this forum is post sports analogies, and never treat these subjects with the seriousness they deserve.  I just view it as a sporting contest, and don't much care about liberty, or freedom, or limited government.  I just want to watch "the game."

At times, it sure sounds like it.  You would think compromise is a religious tenet reading all the incessant demands and argumentation for Conservatives to capitulate for 'votes'.

The Founders weren't people to compromise on the any principles of liberty -- it was all or nothing for them too!... Except the issue of slavery...

Ending the Crown's tyranny over the colonies was job one.  There was no compromise to be had with Tyranny as they learned after countless efforts to appeal, appease and beg at the foot of the throne and in Parliament.   Independence in a unanimous declaration was absolutely necessary if they wanted to retain their liberty when they began to understand the lengths the Crown was intending to go to stamp out the entire idea of freedom in the Colonies.

The issue of slavery was one that had to be wrestled with AT the formation of government AFTER the war had been won and the tyranny of the Crown was utterly and totally defeated.  The preservation of liberty in the Colonies did not hinge on the abolition of slavery, but hinged on the abolition of the rule and control the Crown held over each individual, town and city in the Colonies.

There is no compromise with tyranny, or you simply remain a subject and a slave of those who intend to rule you.  If you think you can play games of compromise with that, it explains a great many things.

If you do not see ObamaCare/TrumpCare/Single Payer as an imposition of government tyranny and just some unwise legislation to micromanage and dissemble  - then we have nothing further to discuss.  Enjoy your chains and may they rest lightly upon you.

[corbe]

    Contributing to the Hijacked Thread

[Mesaclone]

YES. If you read more closely, you will understand that he was dead inside the fish.
Whales don't swallow people, that's not their food. As for being dead....Mathew says "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish..." No, people don't survive for three days in a whale's belly.

If you'll read more closely, it doesn't say 'of each species'... It says 'of each KIND'. Genre. Genus.
And the water covered the land for about a year, not decades and centuries.
That's even more ludicrous. The diversity of this planet took billions of year's to achieve, it could not have been reset in just a few thousands. Further, the land would be deeply saturated and unusable LONG after the beginning of water recession. That's a process that would take decades if not centuries.


As I said before it doesn't say what you think it says.
As I said, I nearly went to seminary at one point in my life and have studied the bible as a historical text. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar...which you may be, but I am not unfamiliar.

[Mesaclone]

    Contributing to the Hijacked Thread

Great stuff.

Give me spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!

[r9etb]

Ending the Crown's tyranny over the colonies was job one.  There was no compromise to be had with Tyranny as they learned after countless efforts to appeal, appease and beg at the foot of the throne and in Parliament.   Independence in a unanimous declaration was absolutely necessary if they wanted to retain their liberty when they began to understand the lengths the Crown was intending to go to stamp out the entire idea of freedom in the Colonies.

You'll recall that that particular disagreement had been settled several years before the writing of the Constitution.  The Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate for a variety of reasons, and this a "more perfect union" was created that .... strengthened the role of the national government.

The issue of slavery was one that had to be wrestled with AT the formation of government AFTER the war had been won and the tyranny of the Crown was utterly and totally defeated.  The preservation of liberty in the Colonies did not hinge on the abolition of slavery, but hinged on the abolition of the rule and control the Crown held over each individual, town and city in the Colonies.

And again ... you've somehow dropped something like 6 years of history there.  The issue of slavery, however, was understood at the time to be counter to the principles in the Declaration, and it never did sit easily with many of the Founders.  Jefferson himself is a good example: he was a significant slave-holder who nevertheless spoke against slavery.

Is that "compromise" or hypocrisy?  Hard to say, but the argument against abolition was economic, which is a bit hard to justify among a group of men who supposedly didn't compromise on matters of liberty.  At any rate, to those who were bought and sold, slavery was certainly a form of tolerated tyranny.

[INVAR]

All societies are built in part upon their myths.

Myth is nothing but sand at the edge of the sea. It shifts, moves, and ridges wherever the wind and current take it.   You try building a foundation for a structure on that sand and see if you can get your building to last more than a few weeks.

Our society was not built on myths, but solid foundational principles that were mostly gleaned from biblical application and historical evidence and precedent.

The liberty we had was unique on all human history, because no society was ever founded upon the principles that actually made up our definition of liberty before.  Most of those biblical in nature and shaped by Christendom and Judaism.
 

Every society has and will continue to create new myths...its human nature, and can bring both good and bad to a nation depending on the myth itself and its underlying ethos.

History teaches it is mostly bad, and God warns the same of a nation whose forbears considered themselves His People.

Moral narcissism dressed up like a drag queen. The problem isn't people's "loins and fleshly desires"...apocalyptic and important as that sounds. The problem is poor decisions, poor education, and a general failure amongst our citizens to understand the true principles of Republican government.

You go ahead and think that, but I find it hilarious that you scoff and ridicule biblical morality as being dressed up as a drag queen and in the following sentence try and tell us that our problem is failure of the people to understand the true principles of Republican Government. 

I like what Benjamin Rush had to say about the principles of Republican Government:

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.  Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."  - Benjamin Rush, Signer.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

According to the rules of that time period,  it was.    Those rules simply didn't apply to slaves.   


I think Chief Justice Taney said something to the effect that "The Declaration of independence was not comprehended as applying to slaves."   

Everyone understood that the document as written did not apply to slaves because they did not choose to apply it to slaves.   That does not mean that the Founders were ignorant of the moral questions surrounding slavery, and even the tensions between the calls for liberty and slavery.  They were.  John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote about it eloquently:

To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

So did Patrick Henry and others.  Madison himself called slavery "unrepublican."   If you go through the Constitutional debates, including those regarding the importation of slaves, some of the Northern delegates actually demanded that all slaves be freed. 

What is inarguable is that there were significant differences among the Founders on the issue of slavery.  In the end, they compromised, because they openly acknowledged that the country could not be formed if they did not.  That's how we ended up with Article I, Section 9, which essentially delayed a ban on the slave trade for 20 years.

My point isn't to rehash the evils of slavery.  It is to rebut the claim that the Founders did not compromise on issues of liberty.  They certainly did.

[musiclady]

Wow guys..... @musiclady, @corbe, @DB, @Bigun ... thank you for the kind sentiments... you made me blush.

All thanks should go to Our Father - who blessed me with the friendship of Rev. Peter Marshall who fed my addiction to History with a focus on the foundation I was never taught in school, from the diaries and letters from the Founders themselves.  It was truly eye opening and still is.

Amen to where ALL Glory goes!

But let me add in awe....... you KNEW Peter Marshall?? He is my hero!

No wonder you're so smart!   

@INVAR



btw, I meant every word I said about you, and I'm glad that others agree with me!

[INVAR]

Is that "compromise" or hypocrisy? 

Hypocrisy.

One that God required to be paid in much blood.

And if the Civil War was God's Judgment on the nation for the sin of hypocrisy by using His Name to declare Liberty for all men and then deny it to African slaves - I tremble to think what will be required of this nation in blood for the hypocrisy of sloganeering 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' when we murdered an entire generation of our own in the womb so we can have extra-marital sex without consequences.

God's winepress turns slowly - but grinds exceedingly fine.

[INVAR]

My point isn't to rehash the evils of slavery.  It is to rebut the claim that the Founders did not compromise on issues of liberty.  They certainly did.

By that reckoning you go ahead and continue to compromise your liberty with Statism and see where you and your posterity end up in the near future.

History already provides the answer and it's not pleasant.

[Mesaclone]

Myth is nothing but sand at the edge of the sea. It shifts, moves, and ridges wherever the wind and current take it.   You try building a foundation for a structure on that sand and see if you can get your building to last more than a few weeks.

Our society was not built on myths, but solid foundational principles that were mostly gleaned from biblical application and historical evidence and precedent.Our moral principles come directly from our myths...both biblical and pagan as drawn out through Greek philosophical thought and the bible. Its only arrogance that thinks our myths are real...its the other guys who's are not. There is truth in philosophy and religion, but it is a spiritual truth...pretending its literal only puts your reason at odds with your faith. Faith founded apart from reason is the real foundation of sand.

The liberty we had was unique on all human history, because no society was ever founded upon the principles that actually made up our definition of liberty before.  Most of those biblical in nature and shaped by Christendom and Judaism.
 
History teaches it is mostly bad, and God warns the same of a nation whose forbears considered themselves His People.

You go ahead and think that, but I find it hilarious that you scoff and ridicule biblical morality as being dressed up as a drag queen and in the following sentence try and tell us that our problem is failure of the people to understand the true principles of Republican Government. 

I like what Benjamin Rush had to say about the principles of Republican Government:

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.  Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."  - Benjamin Rush, Signer.

I don't ridicule biblical morality at all. I ridicule biblical literality.

[DiogenesLamp]

Pardon my French, but that is ludicrous. There has been much flooding, but the planet has never been covered by a singular flood.

Okay,  stop right there.   Let me ask you something.   How would anyone of that time period be able to tell you the entire planet was flooded?   So far as they were concerned,  the entire world was flooded,  but they could only see the portion of it that they happened to be at.   They just assumed the rest of it was underwater because their part of it was underwater.   

There just isn't any scientific evidence to support such an extreme hypothesis.

No,  of course there isn't,   but there is no need to support that hypothesis.   What they wrote can be adequately explained by their lack of knowledge,   and one does not need to take literally the words of people who cannot know beyond their tiny speck of earth.   

The myth of the flood came from early societies, like Sumeria and there are many flood myths throughout the Middle East...so no doubt there were vast and severe flooding events (The flooding of the Black Sea basin being a potential such event)...but never a world wide event.

The fact that there are flood stories from all over the world ought to be pretty good proof to a rational man that there was indeed  floods in which the people believed their entire world had drowned.   That they are so diverse geographically ought to be good proof that the phenomena was indeed quite widespread. 

Have you read about the Scablands Megaflood?   

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/megaflood-legacy.html


It is this same phenomena that is believed to have cut England off from Europe.   A massive flood water that destroyed the land connection between England and Europe.   

Again,  it doesn't have to actually be the entire world flooded at the same time,  though with Tsunamis caused by massive Ice walls collapsing,   it might have flooded every place within  miles of the oceans. 

These people were recounting real wars and societies and cities they encountered, but to take these stories as factual accounts is not credible...it does not mean the stories cannot still convey great meaning and moral teaching, but to take them literally is to set aside reason and common sense.

They were told from the perspective of people who could not understand these events except as something of a supernatural nature.   


Let me tell you of another such occasion.   In the 19th century,  when people were making their way west to California,  Washington,  and Oregon,   there was a valley that the tribal peoples warned the Pioneers to stay away from.    The Indians told them it was full of evil spirits,   and if they went into that valley,  they would die.   

Many settlers ignored it as superstition  and went through that valley anyways.   Astonishingly,   they did take sickness and many died.   There did appear to be "evil spirits"  in that valley,   and people eventually came to avoid it.   


Today there sits a scientific research center on the edge of that valley.   They study a specific tick that inhabits that valley and which is highly infectious with a very nasty virus that is generally fatal to humans. 


The Indians knew nothing of viruses.   All they could describe were "evil spirits"  that would kill you if you entered their valley.   


Scientific reality,   told from the perspective of a person that could only see it as a supernatural thing. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Ending the Crown's tyranny over the colonies was job one. 

And job two by those same Founders was forming a new country with a new Constitution that was intended to preserve liberty, a Constitution that was drafted/ratified by many of the same people involved in the ratification of the Declaration.

They clearly compromised on the issue of slavery, which was a huge moral issue for many of them.  They accepted the evil of continued slavery because they didn't want it to derail the formation of the new country.

[musiclady]

I don't ridicule biblical morality at all. I ridicule biblical literality.

Hmmm...........Jesus, Himself, took Jonah's experience inside the big fish (not whale, btw) quite literally.

Guess you ridicule HIM too, eh??

Not a good plan, son.........

[Smokin Joe]

Well, here are two syllables - eat me.   

Now, now, I wouldn't even feed you to my dog on a bad day.