JU sucks with columns.

That being said, there is no such thing as tax Cuts.  There is only smaller grabs at YOUR money.  The money is you earn is YOURS.  Not the Governments.  Then they confiscate some of it.  When they confiscate less of it, then those who had the most confiscated, have the biggest decrease in the amount confiscated.  10% of $100 is always going to be less than 10% of $100,000.

It is called Math.  And it defies liberals and conservatives alike.

Fuzzy math.

Fuzzy math.

With today's educators? Who can tell.

wow steven I am impressed, you could have at least gave me credit for inspiring you to write this.

I guess this makes me your muse and if I say so myself you could not have a better role model than I.

I guess this makes me your muse

Hehehehehe

I guess this makes me your muse and if I say so myself you could not have a better role model than I.

Not the Muse but rather the Nemesis. Obviously, no credit was necessary, though I assumed the site knew you as the flamethrower and Modman.

I suppose I'm one of those "Christian fundamentalists" you are complaining about. Personally, I think a Christian who diverts from the Bible risks being able to justify calling themselves a Christian. I usually can expect "liberal Christians" or just plain liberals to pick favorite Scriptures -- out of context, and without any real knowledge of the Word -- and try to beat Christians over the head with it.

Anyway, so you, as typical liberals do, proclaim that Bush has been giving tax cut to 'wealthy cronies'. So much for your "keep it simple, not emotional". I happen to be lower middle income, thank you. And I have been very glad for the tax cuts. Particularly the moves toward removing the so-called marriage penalty. I could get into the whole argument debunking your stereotypical complaint about rich people, but that's a dead horse that liberals will continue to refuse to 'get', just like all those dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists who don't seem to 'get' that it takes more 'faith' to believe we came from apes than it does to believe in an intelligent designer.

You don't agree with the war. Fair enough, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Of course, you call it an 'unwanted war', as if any of us 'want' war. Typical liberal rhetoric. I understand that use of military force is sometimes necessary. What we HOPE happens is that we have established the necessary reason to use it. And, whether you choose to believe it or not, it was believed by most at the time that we, in fact, had good enough reason. As for me, the whole WMD issue wasn't important. What I felt justified it was that we had a dictator who was KNOWN to hate America and all Americans. This person was KNOWN to have massacred thousands of his own people in order to A) stay in power and execute his plans elsewhere. Now, that's not to say that I agree with how it's all been handled since we ousted Hussein. But I still believe in the goal. You may not care if this country has any hope of reducing the threat of terrorism against us or our allies. That's your right. I would guess you also think it's fine that thousands of illegals stream across our borders every year. And I would steadfastly say you are absolutely naive and wrong.

You apparently, as most liberals do, think everyone is entitled to everything. Free health care, free housing, free food, free everything. Well, I happen to believe everyone is entitled to the OPPORTUNITY to obtain those things. I believe everyone is entitled to be unfettered in their efforts to obtain those things. I have yet to see ANY program that a government can administer that works. NOT A ONE. And yet liberals seem to think that all people should have hard earned money confiscated and let some bloated agency ATTEMPT to redistribute the wealth to those who don't have as much. Hmm.....socialism and communism. No Thanks.

A major reason why so many liberals absolutely hate or fear the "Christian conservatives" is that we are trying to get the church back into the business it was supposed to have been all along. And that is keeping check on the moral compass of society, providing for the downtrodden, and ministering to those in need. But, you see, this means if WE do it, then you people can't justify your Secular Humanist Government taking over those things. In fact, in the name of "separation of church and state" -- a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians -- you would, in fact, create your OWN state religion, which is that Man Is God and the only Right is Right Now. It's almost laughable that you mentioned (as many liberals do) that we Christians should be content letting our own beliefs to our conscience, and yet -- as exemplified by homosexual activists trying to shove their behavior into acceptance -- you seem to be perfectly fine with THOSE beliefs NOT being left to your own conscience. What hypocrits. Claiming WE are ramming our beliefs down gays throats? Are you listening to yourself? Marriage has ONLY existed between a man and a woman since God created the institution. It's only RECENTLY that homosexuals have tried to FORCE ACCEPTANCE of their CHOSEN BEHAVIOR down our throats through such things as 'gay marriage'. Pretty near-sighted of you.

Speaking for myself, I don't agree with everything the current administration is doing or has done. There are plenty of areas that I find myself very opposite their policies or actions. But given the choice of siding with someone who, given his mistakes, is at least leaning toward ideals found in the Bible, and one who strives to do anything but those things, my choice is clear. Yes, often times it is the lesser of two evils.

The amazing thing over the past six or eight years is that things were basically fine with the liberals until suddently Christians truly holding to the teachings of the Word began to wake up and get back into the game. We'd been asleep for so long we allowed so-called 'progressives' to nearly wipe out any hint of the society this nation was originally built on. We decided that since we were supposed to separate ourselves from the sin that we weren't allowed to be involved at all. Well, my liberal friend, this is still America and we have as much right to be involved and to have our say in directing government and society as you do. I'm sorry if you don't like that we're finally getting off of our rusty dusties, but we have decided that we're not going to let America go the way of Sodom or the Roman Empire....at least not without a serious effort to the contrary. These are NOT 'new values'. They are very same ones that permeated American society at its foundation and for a great deal of time later....until the 1960's, in fact.

Hurrah for Dedelus!!!

For RobertCF: How would you like it if someone came to your blog and made a huge, long response complete with assumptions about your beliefs you never stated in your article ("I would guess you also think it's fine that thousands of illegals stream across our borders every year.") and blanket, dismissive statements about your ideological base ("Anyway, so you, as typical liberals do...")? It's bad debating, and beside that, it's rude, and helps make you a typical conservative, Christian stereotype. Why is no one ever capable of having an actual discussion?

incompetent governance

tax cuts for his upper wealthy cronies

So-called traditional values...huckstered

by his god we will stay the course

ram it down the throats of gays

ask Harriet and the UAE

Simple? Yes.

Rational and unemotional? You decide.

Thank you, Sarah.

Rational and unemotional?

Not surprising that you chose my column and not Modman's. There's a difference between strong language and pithy comments designed to inflame for its own sake.

In fact, in the name of "separation of church and state" -- a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians -- you would, in fact, create your OWN state religion, which is that Man Is God and the only Right is Right Now.

A rash presupposition based on what?

It's almost laughable that you mentioned (as many liberals do) that we Christians should be content letting our own beliefs to our conscience, and yet -- as exemplified by homosexual activists trying to shove their behavior into acceptance -- you seem to be perfectly fine with THOSE beliefs NOT being left to your own conscience.

Homosexual are as much entitled to their own conscience as you are.

These are NOT 'new values'. They are very same ones that permeated American society at its foundation and for a great deal of time later....until the 1960's, in fact.

that being the case, were the great awakenings merely hysteria? or are you suggesting something darker? a scam, perhaps?

maybe you meant the 1660s?

we are trying to get the church back into the business it was supposed to have been all along. And that is keeping check on the moral compass of society

Meaning everyone should have the same values as you.

In fact, in the name of "separation of church and state" -- a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians

From a quiz here
Link

7. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated with
Correct answer

a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson. President Thomas Jefferson coined this phrase in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802.

8. Which early colonies practiced freedom of religion?

Correct answer

Roger Williams' Providence settlement
Trick question! Roger Williams' Providence settlement founded in 1656 expressly guaranteed religious freedom. However, the Pilgrims originally were a tolerant people, when they founded Plymouth in 1620. By 1691, the Pilgrims had adopted the theocratic, intolerant Calvinism of the Puritans, who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. The Puritans came to this land expressly to establish a bible commonwealth, and banished "heretics" and dissenters. In Virginia, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death by burning. Quakers were particularly persecuted. People who were not orthodox Christians were not legally protected, could be denied civil rights and jailed. The founders of the new nation of the United States of America, conversant with extreme religious intolerance and violence in the several colonies, were determined to put an end to it. That is why they established state/church separation.

10. ". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; . . ."

Where does this phrase appear?

Correct answer

U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

It's only RECENTLY that homosexuals have tried to FORCE ACCEPTANCE of their CHOSEN BEHAVIOR down our throats through such things as 'gay marriage'.

Christians and other people have tried to force acceptance of their chosen behaviour down our throats for so much longer. Homosexuals are tame.

If Christians want mixed marriages, let them have mixed marriages.

If homosexuals want same-sex marriages, let them have same-sex marriages.

I don't see why the state should condone or support either. And I don't see why condoning the one constitutes respect for a belief while condoning the other or both constitutes homosexuals forcing their behaviour on the rest of us.

Perhaps Christianity and homosexuality are more similar than many think. Both seem to be eager to force their morality on me and my government. Do what you want, for goodness' sake, and leave the state out of it. Live with a man or a woman or a group of either but don't expect anyone to recognise some of these models but not others.

Homosexual are as much entitled to their own conscience as you are.

And to come back to this, I'm as entitled to NOT having their belief system shoved in my face and down my throat as they are entitled to me not shoving my belief system at them.

If certain minority groups want to be free from having another group's value system forced upon them, then the minority groups should refrain from trying to force their value system on the other group.

Simple, to the point. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." AKA The Golden Rule. Strangely enough, this isn't just a Christian ethos. It can be found in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Neo-paganism, Wicca, and a myriad of other religions. Yet, espousing one's personal beliefs is only allowable to those who aren't Christian. Go figure.

Nice example of tolerance and acceptance of humanity, that.