This is from today's USA Today newspaper, sorry I don't have a link because I'm typing directly from the paper, but it would most likely be at www.usatoday.com.

Fastest growing states since 2003:

1. Nevada 4.1%
2. Arizona 3.0%
3. Florida 2.3%
4. Idaho 1.9%
5. Georgia 1.8%
6. Texas 1.7%
7. Utah 1.6%
8. Delaware 1.5%
9. North Carolina 1.4%
10. New Mexico 1.3%
11. Virginia 1.3%
12. California 1.2%
13. Washington 1.2%
14. South Carolina 1.2%
15. Colorado 1.2%
16. Hawaii 1.1%
17. Alaska 1.1%
18. Tennessee 1.0%
19. Arkansas 0.9%
20. Wyoming 0.9%
21. Montana 0.9%
22. Oregon 0.8%
23. New Hampshire 0.8%
24. South Dakota 0.8%
25. Maryland 0.8%
26. New Jersey 0.7%
27. Mississippi 0.7%
28. Minnesota 0.7%
29. Kentucky 0.7%
30. Alabama 0.6%
31. Maine 0.6%
32. Missouri 0.6%
33. Indiana 0.6%
34. Nebraska 0.6%
35. Wisconsin 0.6%
36. Connecticut 0.5%
37. Louisiana 0.5%
38. Illinois 0.5%
39. Oklahoma 0.5%
40. Rhode Island 0.4%
41. Iowa 0.4%
42. Kansas 0.4%
43. Michigan 0.3%
44. Vermont 0.3%
45. Pennsylvania 0.3%
46. Ohio 0.2%
47. West Virginia 0.2%
48. North Dakota 0.2%
49. New York 0.1%
50. Massachusetts -0.1%
51. D.C. -0.7%
USA 1.0% 
USA population: 293.66 million.

From the article:

"Robust population growth continues to sweep the nation's Southern and Western states according to estimates released today by the Census Bureau.  If this trend continues at it's current pace, states in the north east and midwest that have been population powerhouses since the 19th century will lose their dominance to the Sun Belt states by 2010."

States most likely to gain electoral votes for the 2008 election: North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Utah.

States most likely to lose electoral votes for the 2008 election: Massachusetts and New York.

"Nevada was the fastest growing state for the 18th consecutive year."

"Massachusetts lost population for the first time in more than a decade."

"North Carolina and New Mexico replaced California and Hawaii among the 10 fastest growing states."

Question: Will those red states use those additional electoral votes to save themselves from themselves?

Answer: No.

:o

Question: Will those red states use those additional electoral votes to save themselves from themselves?

Answer: No.

:o


Oh brother.  Anyway, nice to see the Hildabeast's chances are now even lower. 

Most interesting facts:

1. Did you know that if the 2004 election were held in 2000, Bush would have gotten 279 electoral votes instead of 286?  And Kerry would have gotten 259 electoral votes instead of 252?  Well the reason being is that blue states like New York lost electoral votes, while red states gained them.  Example: New York in 2000 had 33 electoral votes, in 2004 it had 31 electoral votes, in 2008...who knows?  Maybe 29.

2.  According to USA Today, the state of Florida, which is a red state, will pass New York, which is a very blue state, in population and take the third highest population ranking (state-wise) in the US in probably as little as five years.

3.  According to USA Today, the state of North Carolina, which is a red state, will pass the state of New Jersey, which is a blue state, in population in as little as three years.

4. Almost all states that will lose electoral votes to other states are blue states.

5. All states that will gain electoral votes are red states.

--I smell decades of power.

In case you're wondering, the three current highest electoral vote holders are:

California: 55 electoral votes.
Texas: 34 electoral votes.
New York: 31 electoral votes.

Decades of destruction of this country!

(I smell a rat.)

Decades of destruction of this country!

(I smell a rat.)


Decades of progress.  Look at liberal countires, like France and Germany.  There unemployment rates are nearly 10%, while conservative Europe, like Ireland, have unemployment rates under 5%.

Socialists and far-left people can take there bad ideas to Europe, where they seem to like the double-digit unemployment, being laughed at by America, and having freedom of choice like with fireworks, guns, death penalty, and choice of school taken away.

Decades of progress.  Look at liberal countires, like France and Germany.  There unemployment rates are nearly 10%, while conservative Europe, like Ireland, have unemployment rates under 5%.

Socialists and far-left people can take there bad ideas to Europe, where they seem to like the double-digit unemployment, being laughed at by America, and having freedom of choice like with fireworks, guns, death penalty, and choice of school taken away.

America would be over 10% unemployment if the figures were counted correctly.  Anyway, the so-called conservative revolution is an illusion based on over-emphasizing Wall Street figures and mortgaging our future for the next couple of hundred years.

Yep, when the rents in the American fabric get too wide, when there Republican Noise Machine is low on fuel and out of lies, the public will call the liberals in to fix the place up again!  Heck, by the time your good-time boy bubble gum Right crony capitalists get through looting the joint, even socialism will seem like paradise!

America would be over 10% unemployment if the figures were counted correctly.  Anyway, the so-called conservative revolution is an illusion based on over-emphasizing Wall Street figures and mortgaging our future for the next couple of hundred years.



Bull.  If they did the figures right it would be lower.  They don't count people who are self-employed.  People whose entire job revolves around selling useless crap on eBay.  They are out there.

The jobs figures we use are outdated.  We have the payroll survey and the household survey.  The media and Wall Street use the payroll survey.  Problem is, this isn't the early 1900's anymore, we have computers.  To add jobs on the payroll survey, you need to be out a traditional job with a punch clock, and others big and small businesses and offices.  The household survey includes people who work at home, not employed but make an income big enough to live.  For example, a few months back during the election, the media reported that something like 112,000 new jobs were created during a certain month of the year.  The household survey showed that over 700,000 jobs were created.  Are unemployment rate and lower, and using the household survey, Bush is in positive job numbers.

Decades of progress. Look at liberal countires, like France and Germany. There unemployment rates are nearly 10%, while conservative Europe, like Ireland, have unemployment rates under 5%.

Conservative Europe like Ireland? It ain't a case of conservative/liberal: Ireland has a low unemployment rate because of hundreds of millions of EU money spent there; Germany only has high unemployment because of the impact of the East at reunification.  You're oversimplifying, and ignoring countries like the Scandinavian ones which have the most socially supportive governments, and unemployment somewhere between the UK and mainland Europe.

PS Fastest growth found in red states'. Red states likely to gain electoral votes.
I guess that's no surprise: you always see higher birth rates in developing states ;)

Conservative Europe like Ireland? It ain't a case of conservative/liberal: Ireland has a low unemployment rate because of hundreds of millions of EU money spent there; Germany only has high unemployment because of the impact of the East at reunification.  You're oversimplifying, and ignoring countries like the Scandinavian ones which have the most socially supportive governments, and unemployment somewhere between the UK and mainland Europe.


Thanks to the right-wing backlash against progress, America now has millions of people working two or more crummy service jobs and still can't meet the bills!  That's not "unemployment' now, is it?
???

In those feckless and lazy countries of Old Europe, if you lose your job, you don't lose your healthcare, your home, or your daily sustenance.  In America, the threat of losing your job is a threat to losing everything, a good tactic to keep the workers docile.

::)

PS Fastest growth found in red states'. Red states likely to gain electoral votes.
I guess that's no surprise: you always see higher birth rates in developing states ;)


Even though the red states do have higher birth rates, USA Today cited three reasons: Death rate, people moving, and birth rate.  People are MOVING out of those blue states, especially after this election.  Hell Massachusetts has a declining rate, probably because of conservatives running away, and why shouldn't they?  Some new gun laws going into effect soon to make all gun-owners in Massachusetts own "smart guns," gay marriage, liberal hatred, men running in Boston with only speedos on.  Kids in schools with condoms on cucumbers.  I'd move myself.

Now we learn that one school in Massachusetts is shoving gay propaganda down kid's throats, with that mandatory attendance making things even easier.  Kid's going to the front of the class, talking about how there gay big brothers made them want to be gay, and how "can you not be gay unless you have tried gay sex, you don't know."  And kicking the parents out, with the police, who are trying to film it so people know what's going on in government schools.  They know if the American public would not stand for that, they can never let film of that class get out.

The liberal playbook: start early.  Brianwash kids before they get a chance to think for themselves.  Make them liberals.  How to do this?  Government schools with mandatory attendance laws.  We got a school in some state in New England (where else?) using second graders to protest a bank being built, something to do with a rain forest.  Sorry, second graders don't make investments, why exactly are they protesting a bank?  Indoctrinate early.

Thanks to the right-wing backlash against progress, America now has millions of people working two or more crummy service jobs and still can't meet the bills!  That's not "unemployment' now, is it?
???




Let me guess.  Raise the minimum wage to a "living wage" right?  Sorry.  People work at minimum wage, I know that.  But that is not suppose to be your life's work.  You start off at minimum wage, as you job skills and seniority grow, you get promoted to high paying jobs.  I'm sorry, if you spend your whole life at minimum wage, that's your fault, not the government's.

In those feckless and lazy countries of Old Europe, if you lose your job, you don't lose your healthcare, your home, or your daily sustenance.  In America, the threat of losing your job is a threat to losing everything, a good tactic to keep the workers docile

I can see healthcare, and even the welfare to live, but the government gets involved with private property and homes?  Private property is the first sign of a free society.  The government should back off.  But hey, same here in America, we got the government trying to sometimes (though rare) seize property for a dam* park, or a wildlife clean-up, or some sh**.  Thanks democrats.

Sorry if republicans support people being responsible for their own life.  Sorry if we want citizens and not subjects.  Sorry if we want more self-reliant people.  Less government, and more private ownership, makes for a more free society.  No nanny state for me, thank you.

Bull.  If they did the figures right it would be lower.  They don't count people who are self-employed.  People whose entire job revolves around selling useless crap on eBay.  They are out there.


Spoken by someone who clearly knows nothing about selling on ebay to make a profit.  I doubt there are more than 5,000 people in total who are making a primary income off of ebay that aren't on the payrolls for the company.  If you think that somehow inflates the unemployment numbers, guess again.  The majority of the crap on ebay is sold by people selling a couple items at a time, not exactly a quick way to riches.  Not to mention, that if you are indeed making money on ebay, you have to report it as self-employment income, and surprise, if you are self-employed, you can't collect unemployment.  Having been unemployed once, I know this, it states it on everything you fill out. 

Trust me, this unreported ebay economy is almost impossible to believe in, but it's no surprise that Dick Cheney believes in it.  He doesn't trust anything he hears on those Internets.

I guess that's no surprise: you always see higher birth rates in developing states ;)


Even though the red states do have higher birth rates, USA Today cited three reasons: Death rate, people moving, and birth rate.  People are MOVING out of those blue states, especially after this election.  Hell Massachusetts has a declining rate, probably because of conservatives running away, and why shouldn't they?  Some new gun laws going into effect soon to make all gun-owners in Massachusetts own "smart guns," gay marriage, liberal hatred, men running in Boston with only speedos on.  Kids in schools with condoms on cucumbers.  I'd move myself.

Now we learn that one school in Massachusetts is shoving gay propaganda down kid's throats, with that mandatory attendance making things even easier.  Kid's going to the front of the class, talking about how there gay big brothers made them want to be gay, and how "can you not be gay unless you have tried gay sex, you don't know."  And kicking the parents out, with the police, who are trying to film it so people know what's going on in government schools.  They know if the American public would not stand for that, they can never let film of that class get out.

The liberal playbook: start early.  Brianwash kids before they get a chance to think for themselves.  Make them liberals.  How to do this?  Government schools with mandatory attendance laws.  We got a school in some state in New England (where else?) using second graders to protest a bank being built, something to do with a rain forest.  Sorry, second graders don't make investments, why exactly are they protesting a bank?  Indoctrinate early.


wow, someone believes the fairy tales they hear on Rush.  I was always led to believe people didn't believe that crap, that they realized it was all just entertainment.  Guess I was wrong.  There isn't a single true statement in that entire post.  Total trolling flamebait.

Conservaitves moving away?  Really? Someone tell Mitt Romney and the previous 4 Republican Governors.  If anything, it's the liberals moving away since the Republicans have been gaining in numbers.  Who will the conservatives blame when Massachusetts is no longer voting Democrat in another ten years time?

The liberal playbook: start early. Brianwash kids before they get a chance to think for themselves. Make them liberals. How to do this? Government schools with mandatory attendance laws. We got a school in some state in New England (where else?) using second graders to protest a bank being built, something to do with a rain forest. Sorry, second graders don't make investments, why exactly are they protesting a bank? Indoctrinate early.

No, that's the Christian modus operandi - catch the children before they can think for themselves.

But I love the idea of "Brianwashing" - force 'em all to watch Monty Python till they're able to quote the entire text, not simply "He's not the messiah - he's a very naughty boy" ;)

No, that's the Christian modus operandi - catch the children before they can think for themselves.



I'm calling BS on that.

Sure parents may or may not take there kids to church.  But the fact is Christians usually raise Christians, Jews usually raise Jews, Muslims usually raise Muslims, atheists ususally raise atheists, republicans ususally raise republicans, democrats usually raise democrats, and so on and so on.  To say it's only Christians raising kids to think the same way is absurd. 

From what I remember, you said you had children.  Any chance they are religious?  Hmm...?  Thought so.

There isn't a single true statement in that entire post.  Total trolling flamebait.

Conservaitves moving away?  Really? Someone tell Mitt Romney and the previous 4 Republican Governors.  If anything, it's the liberals moving away since the Republicans have been gaining in numbers.  Who will the conservatives blame when Massachusetts is no longer voting Democrat in another ten years time?


I'm trying to figure out what was true in that entire post.  The part about Massachusetts's declining population according to USA Today?  The part about Massachusetts with the mandatory smart guns, which will be required a few years after the technology is done?  Did Massachusetts not legalize gay marriage?  Does Massachusetts not have liberals with hate?  Did it not have men running through the steets of Boston in speedos, that goes against this evidence:

http://news.bostonherald.com/images//run12192004.jpg

Story: http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=59579

The part about the kids learning gay tolerance BS in one school in Massachusetts is no myth.  While most of what I posted went from memory of what he said, you can read about it probably at the website he mentioned in the interview (which wasn't with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly): www.article8.org.  Article 8 has something to do with Massachusett's law.  Anyway he has a lot of film about kids talking about what I wrote in my other post, that is before the school and the police kicked him out.

And the final part, about the kids protesting a bank being built, and the kids being brainwashed and used by an eco-terrorist group, well here is a link to the story: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200412%5CCUL20041222a.html

I'm trying to figure out what was true in that entire post.  The part about Massachusetts's declining population according to USA Today?  The part about Massachusetts with the mandatory smart guns, which will be required a few years after the technology is done?  Did Massachusetts not legalize gay marriage?  Does Massachusetts not have liberals with hate?  Did it not have men running through the steets of Boston in speedos, that goes against this evidence:


The part about the kids learning gay tolerance BS in one school in Massachusetts is no myth.  While most of what I posted went from memory of what he said, you can read about it probably at the website he mentioned in the interview (which wasn't with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly): www.article8.org.  Article 8 has something to do with Massachusett's law.  Anyway he has a lot of film about kids talking about what I wrote in my other post, that is before the school and the police kicked him out.

And the final part, about the kids protesting a bank being back, and the kids being brainwashed and used by an eco-terrorist group, well here is a link to the story: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200412%5CCUL20041222a.html




funny... the Santa speedo thing is not a gay event, it's a fundraiser.  Sorry to burst that bubble for you.  I guess it fits your fantasy world though.

Article 8 is a gay bashing site, and not the least bit reputable.  One look at the front page of that site should tell you all you need to know about their agenda.  Try again.  Try a REAL news source.  They have about as much to do with the law as the Onion does.

Liberals don't hate.  Republicans clearly do though.  They hate change. They fear it.  They hate tolerance for other cultures, sexual orientations, etc.  Very un-Christian group if there ever was one, despite what they'll tell you.

funny... the Santa speedo thing is not a gay event, it's a fundraiser.  Sorry to burst that bubble for you.  I guess it fits your fantasy world though.



Not really.  I never wrote that they were gay, or that it was a gay event.  Only that men were running in Boston in speedos.  Which is what they did.  Despite it being a good cause, it is something that I personally would not want to view.  It also doesn't surprise me that it took place in Boston.  I'm pretty sure that kind of event is banned in Georgia, especially with our strict "public decency" law.

Article 8 is a gay bashing site, and not the least bit reputable.

I just gave the site the guy mentioned in the interview.  He was right though during his interview.  Liberals want to get kids early with this crap.  But how to make sure the kid doesn't escape the daily indoctrination ceremony?  Well, not allowing school vouchers and having mandatory attendance laws sure do help.  I'm sorry, but a class with kids saying stuff like "how can you say you're not gay unless you have tried gay sex, you wouldn't know," and one gay kid telling the class how his big brother helped him into the gay lifestyle.  Sorry, that is crap.  I'm glad he at least got that part on film before the teacher saw that he had a video recorder, got the police, and threw them out.  You probably won't see that tape on the news.

I'm calling BS on that.

"Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine for life"
...no prizes for guessing which religion came up with that one.  It's a stratagem used by all the major religions, 'cause they know that if allowed to think for themselves, barely anybody will become spontaneously religious.  The Chinese have been known to do the same sort of thing telling their schoolchildren about the wonders of Communism... but here in the enlightened West, we call it brainwashing.  We're extremely good at double standards...


From what I remember, you said you had children. Any chance they are religious? Hmm...? Thought so.

They're getting their religious indoctrination at school... they're getting taught to think for themselves at home.  So far I'd say one is agnostic, two not old enough to make their minds up yet... and the other one doesn't really care because God doesn't play football.  But my eldest tops the class in religious studies, and probably knows more comparative religion than almost any other ten (oops.. sorry, eleven) year old: she's been very interested in religion (and politics, both national and international) for years now.  That's an attitude that is worth encouraging in a child.

Not really.  I never wrote that they were gay, or that it was a gay event.  Only that men were running in Boston in speedos.  Which is what they did.  Despite it being a good cause, it is something that I personally would not want to view.  It also doesn't surprise me that it took place in Boston.  I'm pretty sure that kind of event is banned in Georgia, especially with our strict "public decency" law.

Men aren't allowed to wear bathing suits in Georgia? Still in the days of full length bathing suits there I guess.  Better hope no one shows an ankle!  I guess the sight of a man's chest or legs scares you.  Maybe it excites you? 


I just gave the site the guy mentioned in the interview.  He was right though during his interview.  Liberals want to get kids early with this crap.  But how to make sure the kid doesn't escape the daily indoctrination ceremony?  Well, not allowing school vouchers and having mandatory attendance laws sure do help.  I'm sorry, but a class with kids saying stuff like "how can you say you're not gay unless you have tried gay sex, you wouldn't know," and one gay kid telling the class how his big brother helped him into the gay lifestyle.  Sorry, that is crap.  I'm glad he at least got that part on film before the teacher saw that he had a video recorder, got the police, and threw them out.  You probably won't see that tape on the news.


PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!  You claim they force gay sex talk on kids in school and then provide some homophobic loser with a crappy looking website as evidence. If what you described happened, every local channel would be all over it in a heartbeat.  It's sensational and news anchors love it.  Yet they're oddly silent.  Reason?  It exists only in this guy's mind. 

Sex ed classes are strictly voluntary incidently.  No one is forcing any sexual agenda on anyone here. If the parents don't want it, they can easily opt their children out of it.  Hate to dispel another one of your gay fantasies.

Sure parents may or may not take there kids to church.  But the fact is Christians usually raise Christians, Jews usually raise Jews, Muslims usually raise Muslims, atheists ususally raise atheists, republicans ususally raise republicans, democrats usually raise democrats, and so on and so on.  To say it's only Christians raising kids to think the same way is absurd. 


By that logic, answer me this:

How do gays get raised?  Liberals?  Dick Cheney is a closet liberal.  I'd never have guessed it.  Or maybe his wife is a closet homosexual?  She did write that lesbian love novel after all.

Just think, you voted for this guy, and he's secretly helping the homosexual agenda.

"Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine for life"
...no prizes for guessing which religion came up with that one.  It's a stratagem used by all the major religions, 'cause they know that if allowed to think for themselves, barely anybody will become spontaneously religious.  The Chinese have been known to do the same sort of thing telling their schoolchildren about the wonders of Communism... but here in the enlightened West, we call it brainwashing.  We're extremely good at double standards...
They're getting their religious indoctrination at school... they're getting taught to think for themselves at home.  So far I'd say one is agnostic, two not old enough to make their minds up yet... and the other one doesn't really care because God doesn't play football.  But my eldest tops the class in religious studies, and probably knows more comparative religion than almost any other ten (oops.. sorry, eleven) year old: she's been very interested in religion (and politics, both national and international) for years now.  That's an attitude that is worth encouraging in a child.




I love that twisted "logic."  Kids who grow up to be atheists had parents who valued self-thinking.  Every atheist is an independent mind.  Have you no shame, sir?  I know you are not that feeble-minded.  Plus, I highly doubt "Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine for life," has anything to do with any sort of brainwashing.  Few people brainwash there children, but the environment they grow up in has a major effect.  If you never mention God around them, never go to church, never do that sort of thing, why would they grow up to be highly religious?  Same works the other way around.  You can't possibly tell me you have no influence on how they grow up to think when it comes to religion, politics, values, etc.

Now I don't live in England, but I highly doubt they are reading the Bible in schools and praying.  The only place that happens in America is a school in California, which banned Christian teaching, but allows Koran studies, and kids kneeling on sheets acting like muslims.  Good job, f***ing California.

I don't care what anyone says, I stand by my words.  Christians raise Christians, Jews raise Jews, democrats raise democrats, and so on and so forth.  I wouldn't be surprised if it happends 8 out of 10 times.

I would feel much better about Conservatives wanting to teach Jesus if they themselves displayed any Christian virtues.  But they don't.  The Right in this country stands for war, fascism, conformity, vengeance, and greed.  I don't want right-winger in charge of telling anybody right from wrong, children OR adults.  They've got an inverse idea of morality.

Liberals don't hate.  Republicans clearly do though.  They hate change. They fear it.  They hate tolerance for other cultures, sexual orientations, etc.  Very un-Christian group if there ever was one, despite what they'll tell you.
I totally disagree with this. I have ran across some liberals who are every bit as narrow-minded and rigid in their thinking as the worst of any right-winger I have met. Additionally, I have also met plenty of people who identify themselves as Republicans who are kind and decent and who sincerely believe in a lot of conservative principles, and while I may disagree with them they are not "hateful" about it.

DON'T BE HATIN' !!!  :)

I totally disagree with this. I have ran across some liberals who are every bit as narrow-minded and rigid in their thinking as the worst of any right-winger I have met. Additionally, I have also met plenty of people who identify themselves as Republicans who are kind and decent and who sincerely believe in a lot of conservative principles, and while I may disagree with them they are not "hateful" about it.

DON'T BE HATIN' !!!  :)
We have met...on the board...and I'd like to say thanks to you, AL-B, for making a very true statement :)

I love that twisted "logic." Kids who grow up to be atheists had parents who valued self-thinking. Every atheist is an independent mind. Have you no shame, sir? I know you are not that feeble-minded. Plus, I highly doubt "Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine for life," has anything to do with any sort of brainwashing. Few people brainwash there children, but the environment they grow up in has a major effect. If you never mention God around them, never go to church, never do that sort of thing, why would they grow up to be highly religious? Same works the other way around. You can't possibly tell me you have no influence on how they grow up to think when it comes to religion, politics, values, etc.

So what's twisted about the logic?  Give children the mental tools they require for critical analysis, then see how many become religious.  Or spend the first few years of their life telling them "THIS IS THE TRUTH" and see how few manage to get an independent thought in their heads for the rest of their lives.


I don't care what anyone says, I stand by my words. Christians raise Christians, Jews raise Jews, democrats raise democrats, and so on and so forth. I wouldn't be surprised if it happends 8 out of 10 times.

It happens an awful lot more than 8/10 times - but surely you realize that your very statement shows that there is no objective reality in religion?  If the reason you are a Christian is purely because your parents were implies there is no meaning to being a Christian, other than to follow in your parents' footsteps.  If there really *were* compelling, objective truth in any religion, then there would be no others.  Full stop.  Period.  End of story.

I've just been watching an excellent Channel 4 production "Who wrote the bible?", and then took more than an hour answering questions from my daughter who watched it with me... and believe me she had some extremely sharp insights and seriously brain-stretching questions.  Just what I needed after a long Christmas day :)  Anyway, time for bed now... and I hope you guys all had as fun a day as I've just had.  G'dnight

I totally disagree with this. I have ran across some liberals who are every bit as narrow-minded and rigid in their thinking as the worst of any right-winger I have met. Additionally, I have also met plenty of people who identify themselves as Republicans who are kind and decent and who sincerely believe in a lot of conservative principles, and while I may disagree with them they are not "hateful" about it.

DON'T BE HATIN' !!!  :)

Believe me, I have met more hypocritical and hateful liberals than you can shake a stick at.  After all, my area, the "Happy Valley," is just as liberal as Berkeley.  I've had this gripe for years that when liberals are intolerant or hateful, they never 'fess up to it.  They always go on and on about other people's negative energy, never understanding the negative energy they produce themselves.

However...I don't like to bring up my disgust with certain liberal hypocrits in front of right-wingers.  The American Right engages in a complete delusional doctrine.  This doctrine tells them that liberals are cruel and oppressive and they, the so-called "conservatives," are kind and accepting.  This is 100% pure unadulterated horse puckey.
The goals of the "conservative" (better called "fascist") movement that has recently gained dominance in America are ultimately hateful.  The more these christo-fascists get their way, the more paranoid, guarded, greedy, envious, destructive, and hateful America will become.

So what's twisted about the logic?  Give children the mental tools they require for critical analysis, then see how many become religious.  Or spend the first few years of their life telling them "THIS IS THE TRUTH" and see how few manage to get an independent thought in their heads for the rest of their lives.
It happens an awful lot more than 8/10 times - but surely you realize that your very statement shows that there is no objective reality in religion?  If the reason you are a Christian is purely because your parents were implies there is no meaning to being a Christian, other than to follow in your parents' footsteps.  If there really *were* compelling, objective truth in any religion, then there would be no others.  Full stop.  Period.  End of story.

I've just been watching an excellent Channel 4 production "Who wrote the bible?", and then took more than an hour answering questions from my daughter who watched it with me... and believe me she had some extremely sharp insights and seriously brain-stretching questions.  Just what I needed after a long Christmas day :)  Anyway, time for bed now... and I hope you guys all had as fun a day as I've just had.  G'dnight


Then how do you explain me?  I must be a rare exception (which I think I am.)  I'm a Christian, and a conservative.  My mother, who is about to be 71, is a socialist, far-left, Nader-voter.  I kid you not.  Since my father died of a heart attack when I was 8, I never really figured out what he political, religious thoughts were.  I spent my whole childhood with her telling me about how God was a myth, how socialism works (and how it was best for America,) and having a "winter party" instead of Christmas.  She is pretty much still the same, though she became a Christian about 15 years ago, she is still the same political nutjob she was when I was growing up, and bothered me all thanksgiving over Kerry losing, telling me how Bush stole Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, and Iowa.

One thing stays common in the major religions, a belief in God.  I think there is evidence to it, and a real belief in it.  Many religions, in my opinion, with different ways of worship, but same God, I think.

And not to be rude (I'm really not,) but I must how read four times now in this thread, and a few others, of how smart your kid is.  Every parent thinks that, hell few can get away with it, especially since we got kids that are 10-years-old with Harvard college degrees.

Then how do you explain me?  I must be a rare exception (which I think I am.)  I'm a Christian, and a conservative.  My mother, who is about to be 71, is a socialist, far-left, Nader-voter.  I kid you not.  Since my father died of a heart attack when I was 8, I never really figured out what he political, religious thoughts were.  I spent my whole childhood with her telling me about how God was a myth, how socialism works (and how it was best for America,) and having a "winter party" instead of Christmas.  She is pretty much still the same, though she became a Christian about 15 years ago, she is still the same political nutjob she was when I was growing up, and bothered me all thanksgiving over Kerry losing, telling me how Bush stole Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, and Iowa.

One thing stays common in the major religions, a belief in God.  I think there is evidence to it, and a real belief in it.  Many religions, in my opinion, with different ways of worship, but same God, I think.



GWB, it's time to take some good old conservative advice:  Listen to your mother.  She is learned and wise!
;)

Then how do you explain me? I must be a rare exception (which I think I am.) I'm a Christian, and a conservative. My mother, who is about to be 71, is a socialist, far-left, Nader-voter.
Apart from the obvious: she couldn't have been a Nader-voter during your formative years... but seriously, this is your own point that you're arguing against: that Christians raise Christians etc.


I spent my whole childhood with her telling me about how God was a myth, how socialism works (and how it was best for America,)

OK, so she was right some of the time ;)


And not to be rude (I'm really not,) but I must how read four times now in this thread, and a few others, of how smart your kid is. Every parent thinks that, hell few can get away with it, especially since we got kids that are 10-years-old with Harvard college degrees.

You brought them up, this thread... and I can't find three other mentions of them over the past month.  But like most parents, I am inordinately proud of my children: I'm extremely lucky to have the four that I have.  And I apologise if it seems that I have been blowing their trumpets overmuch, but IMO they're worth it :)

Not really.  I never wrote that they were gay, or that it was a gay event.  Only that men were running in Boston in speedos.  Which is what they did.  Despite it being a good cause, it is something that I personally would not want to view.  It also doesn't surprise me that it took place in Boston.  I'm pretty sure that kind of event is banned in Georgia, especially with our strict "public decency" law.




Make sure to check into Boston news on January 1 when the "L Street Brownies" take their
annual dip in the Atlantic Ocean for charity.  :o