What CNN can't report without offending its sponsors

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

For the sake of reason, pretend that you are a Democrat for a second. Sorry. Anyway, now wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Democratic party for Hillary to remain in the race until the convention in Denver?

Let us say that Hillary uses her power to force events by threatening to step out of the Democratic party to run as an Independent. This unthinkable act would threaten to split the liberal vote thus aiding McCain in his election bid. So, let us say that the DNC then decides to fund the primary elections in both Florida and Michagan as a result.

This action would then give Hillary enough votes to make it necessary to use the convention to determine which candidate would be best able to defeat McCain. As it stand now, the Democratic primary process has eroded to electing the winner in the primary process rather than to pick the best available candidate to defeat the opposing candidate as was the original intention.

Can anyone else see the demise of the Democratic party? First the party set the precedent of legally challenging a national election in the Supreme Court which is a petty action one would expect in a third world country. Then the national party arrogantly tempted fate by setting rules over 2 large states rather than compromise with them. Now the party is allowing its primary process to erode to the point that it might never again win a national election without causing race riots in the streets.

[acptulsa]

Well, my first reaction is that I certainly hope the DNC is teetering on the same brink as the RNC. Having one dead and one uninjured would be an unthinkable lack of any semblance of a balance of power. My second thought is that both are in the positions they are in because we already have that lack of balance--that any balance and any difference between them is a smoke and mirrors illusion. So, maybe it would be good to have one strong and one weak--especially if the DNC is the strong one. That way it would be vote for the establishment or vote for the revolution.

No complaints either way. We can have an establishment lackey to kick around or we can just start from scratch...

[LittleLightShining]

causing race riots in the streets.

This is the WHOLE POINT.

[Truth Warrior]

Saint Hillary and the Religious Left

by Murray N. Rothbard

For some time I have been hammering at the theme that the main cultural and political problem of our time is not "secular humanism." The problem with making secularism the central focus of opposition is that, by itself, secularism would totally lack the fanaticism, the demonic energy, the continuing and permanent drive to take over and remake the culture and the society, that has marked the left for two centuries. Logically, one would expect a secular humanist to be a passive skeptic, ready to adapt to almost any existing state of affairs; David Hume, for example, a philosophic disaster but quietly benign in social and political matters, would seem to be typical. Hardly a political and cultural menace.

No: the hallmark and the fanatical drive of the left for these past centuries has been in devoting tireless energy to bringing about, as rapidly as they can, their own egalitarian, collectivist version of a Kingdom of God on Earth. In short, this truly monstrous movement is what might be called "left-post-millennialist." It is messianic and post-millennialist because Man, not Christ or Providence, is supposed to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth (KGE), that is, in the Christian version, that Christ is only supposed to return to earth after Man has established the 1,000-year KGE. It is leftist because in this version, the KGE is egalitarian and collectivist, with private property stamped out, and the world being run by a cadre or vanguard of Saints.

During the 1820s, the Protestant churches in the Northern states of the U.S. were taken over by a wave of post-millennial fanatics determined to impose on local, state, and federal governments, and even throughout the world, their own version of a theocratic statist KGE. A "Yankee" ethnocultural group had originated in New England, and had migrated to settle the northern areas of New York and the Middle-Western states. The Yankees were driven by the fanatical conviction that they themselves could not achieve salvation unless they did their best to maximize everyone else's: which meant, among other features, to devote their energies to instituting the sinless society of the KGE.

These newly mainstream Yankee Protestant churches were always statist, but the major emphasis in the early decades was the stamping out of "sin," sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment. By the later years of the nineteenth century, however, economic collectivism received increasing attention by these left millennialist Protestants, and strictly theological and Christological concerns gradually faded away, culminating in the explicitly socialistic Social Gospel movement in all the Protestant churches. While every one of the Yankee Protestant denominations was infected and dominated by left millennialism, this heresy prevailed almost totally in the Methodist Church.

SAINT HILLARY

Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God's alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his "ministry" is to bring about "the Kingdom of God on earth." That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton's remarkable statement went unreported.

But, as we all know, it is Hillary, not Slick Willie, who is the hard-core ideologue in the White House. Hillary's theological agenda was perceptively unveiled recently by the knowledgeable, if admiring and liberal, Kenneth L. Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek. (Kenneth L. Woodward, "Soulful Matters," Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) pp. 23–25) In a lengthy exclusive interview with Hillary, Woodward reports that our Lady Macbeth simply considers herself "an old-fashioned Methodist."

Hillary's pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary's family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of "social reform"; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones "developed his privileged suburban students' social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers' children."

The most important passage in Woodward's article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: "More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

Only a few brush-strokes are needed to complete the picture. The Rev. Jones, a frequent visitor to the White House, but who seems at least to have a sense of humor and perspective that the arrogant and self-righteous Hillary totally lacks, puts it this way: Even today, says Rev. Jones, "when Hillary talks it sounds like it comes out of a Methodist Sunday-school lesson." And: "Hillary views the world through a Methodist lens. And we Methodists knew what's good for you."

Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old-fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>.

He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard139.html

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Both major parties are controlled by the same people. It's a win-win situation for them regardless of which party wins.

[Truth Warrior]

Both major parties are controlled by the same people. It's a win-win situation for them regardless of which party wins.
The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/

:D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

For some time I have been hammering at the theme that the main cultural and political problem of our time is not "secular humanism." The problem with making secularism the central focus of opposition is that, by itself, secularism would totally lack the fanaticism, the demonic energy, the continuing and permanent drive to take over and remake the culture and the society, that has marked the left for two centuries. Logically, one would expect a secular humanist to be a passive skeptic, ready to adapt to almost any existing state of affairs; David Hume, for example, a philosophic disaster but quietly benign in social and political matters, would seem to be typical. Hardly a political and cultural menace.

I see the term "secular humanism."
Still, this view of political science fails to differentiate between the European system of manipulating people to "become" citizens and the American system of establishing people as "being" citizens based on a foundation of self evident and inalienable truths. While manipulating people requires an extensive political science, the American system of establishing people requires the use of the science of natural law. The whole argument here is profound. While power should be considered corrupt when it manipulates people to alter the powers of corruption, the powers of the self evident and inalienable truths are greater than the powers of corruption. So, the mediating power of the people come from the self evident and inalienable truths. These mediating powers of the people regulate liberty by the binding the king and by the freeing of the untouchable to sit together at the same dinner table. Without the purpose of freeing the untouchable to come to the table, we are unable to tolerate the king's authority who is then divorced as a tyrant.


No: the hallmark and the fanatical drive of the left for these past centuries has been in devoting tireless energy to bringing about, as rapidly as they can, their own egalitarian, collectivist version of a Kingdom of God on Earth. In short, this truly monstrous movement is what might be called "left-post-millennialist." It is messianic and post-millennialist because Man, not Christ or Providence, is supposed to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth (KGE), that is, in the Christian version, that Christ is only supposed to return to earth after Man has established the 1,000-year KGE. It is leftist because in this version, the KGE is egalitarian and collectivist, with private property stamped out, and the world being run by a cadre or vanguard of Saints.

This view is still lost within the deep, legal precedent world of manipulation involved with political science. The ideas expressed above imply that someone must "do." Something must "be done" to manipulate events like converting liberals to become conservatives or, even better, the liberals themselves just being killed off. This would move the people along the political spectrum to where they will eventually win their way to their "citizenship."
This argument also seems to be making the attempt to move the Clintons from the position of being sophisticated secular humanists to that of being shallower Christian antagonists. Of course, the complexity contrived above looks far more significant when juxtaposed to the shallow Christian antagonist.


During the 1820s, the Protestant churches in the Northern states of the U.S. were taken over by a wave of post-millennial fanatics determined to impose on local, state, and federal governments, and even throughout the world, their own version of a theocratic statist KGE. A "Yankee" ethnocultural group had originated in New England, and had migrated to settle the northern areas of New York and the Middle-Western states. The Yankees were driven by the fanatical conviction that they themselves could not achieve salvation unless they did their best to maximize everyone else's: which meant, among other features, to devote their energies to instituting the sinless society of the KGE.

The protagonist here is still glorifying the complexity of his argument by depicting Christians as his shallow, post-millennial, fanatical, antagonists; when, the protagonist's argument is only as dignified as the antagonist argument it opposes.
So, the argument fails here.
But I'll continue.


These newly mainstream Yankee Protestant churches were always statist, but the major emphasis in the early decades was the stamping out of "sin," sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment. By the later years of the nineteenth century, however, economic collectivism received increasing attention by these left millennialist Protestants, and strictly theological and Christological concerns gradually faded away, culminating in the explicitly socialistic Social Gospel movement in all the Protestant churches. While every one of the Yankee Protestant denominations was infected and dominated by left millennialism, this heresy prevailed almost totally in the Methodist Church.

If "'sin,' sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment" is true, this amounts not to a new "yankee" phenomenon but a "renaissance" of past Puritan values. While the protagonist above argues from a more secularized American Transcendentalist viewpoint of the mid 19th century, the early 19th century itself was considered to be secularized by the earlier Puritan influence.


SAINT HILLARY

Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God's alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his "ministry" is to bring about "the Kingdom of God on earth." That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton's remarkable statement went unreported.

The argument here would be better made by the protagonist narrator demonstrating that he knows the argument of the antagonist even better than the antagonist. It isn't just that the he knows the antagonist argument better but, on the other hand, that he thinks it is, on second thought, a great one, but you know you have to appreciate, for the following reasons: a) . . .. b) . . .. and so on. Then and only then will his argument be substantiated. By calling President Clinton "Slick Willie," his argument fails because now his claim can't be appreciated.
But I will continue.


But, as we all know, it is Hillary, not Slick Willie, who is the hard-core ideologue in the White House. Hillary's theological agenda was perceptively unveiled recently by the knowledgeable, if admiring and liberal, Kenneth L. Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek. (Kenneth L. Woodward, "Soulful Matters," Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) pp. 23–25) In a lengthy exclusive interview with Hillary, Woodward reports that our Lady Macbeth simply considers herself "an old-fashioned Methodist."

In order refer to the Mormon Church in Texas as a cult in a recent article, "The Dallas Morning News" newspaper established that claim by seeking out and referencing a "religious expert." Of course, making a similar claim towards the Catholic Church which had preists abusing children would have gotten that expert nowhere.
Other than that, I can't help but notice that the protagonist narrator above continues belittling Hillary's ability by lowering her from being that of a "secular humanist" to that of a person who is a "hard-core ideologue Christian." Therefore:

Major Premise: All Christians are shallower than secular humanists.
Minor Premise: Hillary isn't really a secular humanist but a Christian Methodist.
Conclusion: Hillary is a shallow Christian Methodist.


Hillary's pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary's family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of "social reform"; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones "developed his privileged suburban students' social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers' children."

The protagonist narrator here stoops by playing off the reader's fear of anything "social" as he does prior with the term "collectivism." So, we can isolate the narrators expected reader to be "conservative" in his or her political persuasion meaning that he also believes that solutions can be acheived in the American system by the manipulation of the American people.


The most important passage in Woodward's article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: "More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

Major premise: All Protestants are dumb.
Minor premise: Methodists are dumber.
Conclusion: Methodists are dumber than even dumb Protestants.


Only a few brush-strokes are needed to complete the picture. The Rev. Jones, a frequent visitor to the White House, but who seems at least to have a sense of humor and perspective that the arrogant and self-righteous Hillary totally lacks, puts it this way: Even today, says Rev. Jones, "when Hillary talks it sounds like it comes out of a Methodist Sunday-school lesson." And: "Hillary views the world through a Methodist lens. And we Methodists knew what's good for you."

I am having a difficult time writing this as a logical statement. Why would the Reverend Jones be a Methodist and yet belittle his own religion as "And we Methodists knew what's good for you."? Doesn't this witness discount his own testimony against Hillary?


Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old-fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.

Why doesn't this fellow mention Jimmy Carter? Our fear of Christian influence in the White House originates from his failure in office. It was after Jimmy Carter's administration that even Christians felt that we shouldn't mix our Christian religion with the more practical affairs of every day government.

[Truth Warrior]

..........

[Truth Warrior]

I see the term "secular humanism."
Still, this view of political science fails to differentiate between the European system of manipulating people to "become" citizens and the American system of establishing people as "being" citizens based on a foundation of self evident and inalienable truths. While manipulating people requires an extensive political science, the American system of establishing people requires the use of the science of natural law. The whole argument here is profound. While power should be considered corrupt when it manipulates people to alter the powers of corruption, the powers of the self evident and inalienable truths are greater than the powers of corruption. So, the mediating power of the people come from the self evident and inalienable truths. These mediating powers of the people regulate liberty by the binding the king and by the freeing of the untouchable to sit together at the same dinner table. Without the purpose of freeing the untouchable to come to the table, we are unable to tolerate the king's authority who is then divorced as a tyrant.



This view is still lost within the deep, legal precedent world of manipulation involved with political science. The ideas expressed above imply that someone must "do." Something must "be done" to manipulate events like converting liberals to become conservatives or, even better, the liberals themselves just being killed off. This would move the people along the political spectrum to where they will eventually win their way to their "citizenship."
This argument also seems to be making the attempt to move the Clintons from the position of being sophisticated secular humanists to that of being shallower Christian antagonists. Of course, the complexity contrived above looks far more significant when juxtaposed to the shallow Christian antagonist.



The protagonist here is still glorifying the complexity of his argument by depicting Christians as his shallow, post-millennial, fanatical, antagonists; when, the protagonist's argument is only as dignified as the antagonist argument it opposes.
So, the argument fails here.
But I'll continue.



If "'sin,' sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment" is true, this amounts not to a new "yankee" phenomenon but a "renaissance" of past Puritan values. While the protagonist above argues from a more secularized American Transcendentalist viewpoint of the mid 19th century, the early 19th century itself was considered to be secularized by the earlier Puritan influence.



The argument here would be better made by the protagonist narrator demonstrating that he knows the argument of the antagonist even better than the antagonist. It isn't just that the he knows the antagonist argument better but, on the other hand, that he thinks it is, on second thought, a great one, but you know you have to appreciate, for the following reasons: a) . . .. b) . . .. and so on. Then and only then will his argument be substantiated. By calling President Clinton "Slick Willie," his argument fails because now his claim can't be appreciated.
But I will continue.



In order refer to the Mormon Church in Texas as a cult in a recent article, "The Dallas Morning News" newspaper established that claim by seeking out and referencing a "religious expert." Of course, making a similar claim towards the Catholic Church which had preists abusing children would have gotten that expert nowhere.
Other than that, I can't help but notice that the protagonist narrator above continues belittling Hillary's ability by lowering her from being that of a "secular humanist" to that of a person who is a "hard-core ideologue Christian." Therefore:

Major Premise: All Christians are shallower than secular humanists.
Minor Premise: Hillary isn't really a secular humanist but a Christian Methodist.
Conclusion: Hillary is a shallow Christian Methodist.



The protagonist narrator here stoops by playing off the reader's fear of anything "social" as he does prior with the term "collectivism." So, we can isolate the narrators expected reader to be "conservative" in his or her political persuasion meaning that he also believes that solutions can be acheived in the American system by the manipulation of the American people.



Major premise: All Protestants are dumb.
Minor premise: Methodists are dumber.
Conclusion: Methodists are dumber than even dumb Protestants.



I am having a difficult time writing this as a logical statement. Why would the Reverend Jones be a Methodist and yet belittle his own religion as "And we Methodists knew what's good for you."? Doesn't this witness discount his own testimony against Hillary?



Why doesn't this fellow mention Jimmy Carter? Our fear of Christian influence in the White House originates from his failure in office. It was after Jimmy Carter's administration that even Christians felt that we shouldn't mix our Christian religion with the more practical affairs of every day government.

Hmmmm, Murray or Emanuel, Murray or Emanuel.

It's Murray in a OVERWHELMING LANDSLIDE by 99.99999999%, even though he's dead! :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Hmmmm, Murray or Emanuel, Murray or Emanuel.

It's Murray in a OVERWHELMING LANDSLIDE by 99.99999999%, even though he's dead! :D

You just posted the article as if you agree with it totally while thinking it is enough that the reader will suppose that you read it. You should have offered your critical analysis of it first while showing how the article relates to the opening post.

[Truth Warrior]

You just posted the article as if you agree with it totally while thinking it is enough that the reader will suppose that you read it. You should have offered your critical analysis of it first while showing how the article relates to the opening post.

Thank you for your unsolicited feedback. :) Under advice from counsel: :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Thank you for your unsolicited feedback. :) Under advice from counsel: :p

You know, the opening post didn't start off insane. It just evolved to become insane over time. But then, the opening post also evolved to become wrong. I mean, now Senator Obama is probably about to get the Democratic nomination. Ding dong the witch is dead.
Anyway, this could mean that the Democratic party will continue eroding into oblivion. First Gore, then Kerry and now Obama. Because 95% of the African Americans voted for Obama, I see 96% of the Anglo Americans not voting for him. I just feel that African Americans are 01% more sophisticated than Anglo Americans when it comes to race.
But many out there feel that 99% of the 02% of the gay white males in this nation will also vote for Obama as will 75% of the 05% of the females who are feminists.
And while 50% of the white females have confessed to having the desire to sleep with Obama, only 33% of the political pundits actually feel this will result votes for Obama.
Of course, the states of Florida and Michagan are expected to go for McCann while he is also expected to garner the remaining 05% of the African Americans who didn't vote for Obama.
Anyway, here goes another thread into the abyss.

[Truth Warrior]

You know, the opening post didn't start off insane. It just evolved to become insane over time. But then, the opening post also evolved to become wrong. I mean, now Senator Obama is probably about to get the Democratic nomination. Ding dong the witch is dead.
Anyway, this could mean that the Democratic party will continue eroding into oblivion. First Gore, then Kerry and now Obama. Because 95% of the African Americans voted for Obama, I see 96% of the Anglo Americans not voting for him. I just feel that African Americans are 01% more sophisticated than Anglo Americans when it comes to race.
But many out there feel that 99% of the 02% of the gay white males in this nation will also vote for Obama as will 75% of the 05% of the females who are feminists.
And while 50% of the white females have confessed to having the desire to sleep with Obama, only 33% of the political pundits actually feel this will result votes for Obama.
Of course, the states of Florida and Michagan are expected to go for McCann while he is also expected to garner the remaining 05% of the African Americans who didn't vote for Obama.
Anyway, here goes another thread into the abyss.
But the TS did and is. :( Evidence: That post, and others.

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." -- Martin Luther King Jr., December 11, 1964

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

But the TS did and is. :(

Sorry. I don't text message and have no idea what TS means.
I think Hillary should resign from politics so that she can devote the rest of her life to taking care of babies. Perhaps this will teach her not to be a hater.
Now that McCain is leading the Republican party across the political spectrum into the land of the liberal, perhaps the Independent effort should attempt to reestablish the weakened Democratic party instead as the conservative representative.

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry. I don't text message and have no idea what TS means.
I think Hillary should resign from politics so that she can devote the rest of her life to taking care of babies. Perhaps this will teach her not to be a hater.
Now that McCain is leading the Republican party across the political spectrum into the land of the liberal, perhaps the Independent effort should attempt to reestablish the weakened Democratic party instead as the conservative representative.
Look at your last post here. Box, in the lower left hand corner, TS, "Thread Starter".

"Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' " -- Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Civil Rights March on Washington, August 28, 1963

[Dr.3D]

Wow, did somebody put silica sand in the salt shaker?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Look at your last post here. Box, in the lower left hand corner, TS, "Thread Starter".

"Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' " -- Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Civil Rights March on Washington, August 28, 1963

Sorry. I don't understand. Anyway, this thread has become obsolete. So, I'm going to let it slide into the abyss.
I do like Martin Luther King. I used to be a bus driver and thought it was cute the way little black children thought that the significance of his movement was that he gave his life so that they could have a day off from school. After reading all your threads, I am certain that you love Martin Luther King to. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry. I don't understand. Anyway, this thread has become obsolete. So, I'm going to let it slide into the abyss.
I do like Martin Luther King. I used to be a bus driver and thought it was cute the way little black children thought that the significance of his movement was that he gave his life so that they could have a day off from school. After reading all your threads, I am certain that you love Martin Luther King to. ;)
True, you do NOT understand.

As with Bertrand Russell, I'm not endorsing the guy, I just like the quotes. :)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wow, did somebody put silica sand in the salt shaker?

Thanks for your very thoughtful response to this thread, sir. Your partronage is appreciated. May God bless your family. Remember to vote.

This response was computer generated.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

True, you do NOT understand.

As with Bertrand Russell, I'm not endorsing the guy, I just like the quotes. :)

I see. So you don't understand Bertrand Russell's set theory argument then?

I think it is going to take a while to understand Martin Luther King. We have to wait until he loses his color. Like Gandhi did. When I consider Gandhi, I never think of him as being a colored fellow.

I also don't think of Abraham Lincoln as a white fellow. He was extremely ugly even before he was shot, but the man transcends color. Great man! A true Libertarian.

[LittleLightShining]

I am having a difficult time writing this as a logical statement. Why would the Reverend Jones be a Methodist and yet belittle his own religion as "And we Methodists knew what's good for you."? Doesn't this witness discount his own testimony against Hillary?

My take on this was different. I got the impression that Jones meant exactly what he said-- that Methodists know what's good for people-- and that his comment re: Hillary meant that she knew her Methodist rhetoric and was good at applying it to her perspective.

Another way to look at it is that she learned well how to tell people that she knows what's good for them in a way that many people would find acceptable.

[Truth Warrior]

I see. So you don't understand Bertrand Russell's set theory argument then?

I think it is going to take a while to understand Martin Luther King. We have to wait until he loses his color. Like Gandhi did. When I consider Gandhi, I never think of him as being a colored fellow.

I also don't think of Abraham Lincoln as a white fellow. He was extremely ugly even before he was shot, but the man transcends color. Great man! A true Libertarian.

I understand Russell's set theory argument.

I understand MLK. I understand Gandhi.

Not a Lincoln fan, but I understand him. He was NO libertarian.

Three strikes, you're out. Care to GUESS again?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

My take on this was different. I got the impression that Jones meant exactly what he said-- that Methodists know what's good for people-- and that his comment re: Hillary meant that she knew her Methodist rhetoric and was good at applying it to her perspective.

Another way to look at it is that she learned well how to tell people that she knows what's good for them in a way that many people would find acceptable.

But the secular transcendentalist movement didn't start in the United States until the mid nineteenth century while the secular Puritan age was still happening during the early nineteenth century. The miserable Methodists weren't any more or less miserable than the rest of the American Puritans in the United States while their desires to make others miserable weren't any more or less of a desire than any other American. Read the Scarlet Letter.

The significance of the secular transcendentalist movement and Ralph Waldo Emerson in particular is how he used the character of the Native American as a positive model of the kind of happy Americans our founding fathers intended in the Declaration of Independence.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I understand Russell's set theory argument.

I understand MLK. I understand Gandhi.

Not a Lincoln fan, but I understand him. He was NO libertarian.

Three strikes, you're out. Care to GUESS again?

So you say.

[Truth Warrior]

So you say.
Indeed!

[LittleLightShining]

But the secular transcendentalist movement didn't start in the United States until the mid nineteenth century while the secular Puritan age was still happening during the early nineteenth century. The miserable Methodists weren't any more or less miserable than the rest of the American Puritans in the United States while their desires to make others miserable weren't any more or less of a desire than any other American. Read the Scarlet Letter.

The significance of the secular transcendentalist movement and Ralph Waldo Emerson in particular is how he used the character of the Native American as a positive model of the kind of happy Americans our founding fathers intended in the Declaration of Independence.Sorry, I thought you were referring to Jones and his comments about Hillary Clinton.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Jones and his comments about Hillary Clinton.

The idea that we should be happy Americans, that Americans are different from Europeans and that our founding fathers established our nation on the self evident and inalienable truths wasnt realized until a mid nineteenth century renaissance by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In the early nineteenth century, the cruel characteristics of manipulation, persecution and exploitation still manifest themselves in the secular Puritan culture of our nation. The Methodists just had their own distinctive way of manipulating, persecuting and exploiting.

[LittleLightShining]

The idea that we should be happy Americans, that Americans are different from Europeans and that our founding fathers established our nation on the self evident and inalienable truths wasnt established until the mid nineteenth century by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In the early nineteenth century, the cruel characteristics of manipulation, persecution and exploitation still manifest themselves in the secular Puritan culture of our nation. The Methodists just had their own distinctive way of manipulating, persecuting and exploiting.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Written in June and adopted in July of 1776. The basis of our nation as a sovereign entity-- how was this not established until Emerson?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Written in June and adopted in July of 1776. The basis of our nation as a sovereign entity-- how was this not established until Emerson?

The ideal of happiness in the Declaration of Independence was not illuminated until Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson argued shrewdly that the Native American exhibited the kind of happiness that our founding fathers intended for us. This is the culture break in American culture. Prior to this time the Puritan culture considered the Native American to be a demon or a savage. Thoreau and Mark Twain furthered American transcendentalism by depicting the culture of the Native American as a positive influence on the United States.

[LittleLightShining]

The ideal of happiness in the Declaration of Independence was not illuminated until Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson argued shrewdly that the Native American exhibited the kind of happiness that our founding fathers intended for us. This is the culture break in American culture. Prior to this time the Puritan culture considered the Native American to be a demon or a savage. Thoreau and Mark Twain furthered American transcendentalism by depicting the culture of the Native American as a positive influence on the United States.

Ok, let me see... You're telling me that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no notion of what it meant to be happy? They weren't really capable of understanding what exactly happiness is until Emerson wrote about the Native American lifestyle? I'm having a hard time understanding 1) how this could be and 2) what this has to do with Hillary Clinton's Methodistic rehtoric.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ok, let me see... You're telling me that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no notion of what it meant to be happy? They weren't really capable of understanding what exactly happiness is until Emerson wrote about the Native American lifestyle? I'm having a hard time understanding 1) how this could be and 2) what this has to do with Hillary Clinton's Methodistic rehtoric.

The teaching of American literature in college is generally divided into 2 parts with the first part dedicated to the secular culture of American Puritanism and the second dedicated to the secular culture of American Transcendentalism. While the first textbook begins generally with "The Scarlet Letter" as the story which best epitomizes secular Puritanism, the second textbook begins generally with "Huckleberry Finn" as the story which best epitomizes secular Transcendentalism.

While "The Scarlet Letter" depicts nature as an evil which surrounds God's people, "Huckleberry Finn" represents a movement away from this Puritanism as Huckleberry runs away to return to nature.

In general, the early period between the founding of our nation leading up to Ralph Waldo Emerson and transcendentalism represents an erosion away from our early Constitutional government. The reasons for this lay in the weakness of our government primarily as it started out as a totalitarian style of government represented by a single party; while, the U.S. Supreme Court during this time did not take on the function of sitting in judgement over the constitutionality of laws. They felt they had to do something to exert their power in the beginning so they wrote Writs of Mandimus instead. This weak government resulted in the creation of the 2 party system which took up an agenda of either ammending, preserving or outright abolishing the U.S. Constitution. As a result, during this time there wasn't a sense that our Constitution was permanent.

There was a significant American movement during this earlier Puritan time involving "state rights" which culminated in the election of Andrew Jackson as the most popular American President ever. As this earlier Puritan movement managed to acheive a return to the primary intimacy of our governement's purpose, every American movement creates perspectives by shining light on the original intentions of our founding fathers. These movements in turn reestablish the American soul while they enhance our American heritage and culture.

To answer your first question, by and large the duty of responsibility took precedence over the idea of happiness during the age of secular Puritanism in American history even up to and beyond the creation of the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't until Ralph Waldo Emerson that the American Transcendentalism movement began to establish the idea that happiness should take precedence over the duty of responsibility. He established this movement by shining a light on our founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence while he used the Native American as a model of the type of happy people our founding fathers intended for us to be. This movement also isolated the American culture as distinctive from the European.

Methodism didn't exist as a manipulative, exploitive, persecuting religion outright as much as it was a distinctive sect within an overall Puritan culture which was manipulative, exploitive and persecuting because of its tendency to hold the duty of responsibility over the idea of happiness.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Both major parties are controlled by the same people. It's a win-win situation for them regardless of which party wins.

CNN and the national media operate under inferior editors nowadays. Neither the writers nor the editors of these backwards media corporations will ever understand that political campaigns in the United States benefit tyranny while American Movements benefit the people.
Why do we spend so much time in this forum sponsoring the media by posting conspiracies and funny anecdotes based on their articles when we should be working to narrow them down to the inferior editors responsible for their corrupt operations? These editors are inferior for many reasons one being the obvious bias they exhibit towards Dr. Ron Paul.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This is the WHOLE POINT.

Why do think State National Guards, in coordination with the Nazi Department of Fatherland, uh, I mean Homeland Security (DHS)... have been conducting Riot drills under National Emergency Disaster Drills?

If it's a Natural Disaster, why does it involve, SWATs, State Beareus of Investigations, ATF, DEA, FBI, & DHS?

Simple... another example of government PARANOIA and CONTROL.