Typical bashing by Alex and Spectrum of anyone to the right of Karl Marx. Long live President Messiah...err Obama.

[Yes, Jason Miller, comparing the words of Jesus with major Tea Party figures makes one a Marxist. Perhaps you'll learn about the success of McCarthy one day. —A.C.]

No, I don't remember him, Father Jim. And neither do you. It appears that the right shows its rationality in the same way Islamists show their peacefulness.

I love the astuteness of the Tea Party: They can vote against their own interest! Isn't it great?

- No healthcare for those who can't afford the high cost imposed by the insurance companies' monopoly (supported by the Reps). We have to support and protect those corporations. They mus become "giants" in the market and take all our money. They really need to do that!
- No fair taxes. Middle class has to pay way more than the rich. They deserve it: they are rich! What's the problem of them paying way less than I do? I am a tea-party militant, I should pay more anyway.
- Who cares about the environment? Our lungs are not important. The important is to make sure that corporations "breath" well and their bank accounts "breath" well. Our children's health is irrelevant.
- Let the auto industry die. Who needs American cars? Who needs a job in the auto industry?
- Let's give tax incentives to corporations moving jobs to China. Moving is expensive, and they need some help to pay for the transport.
- Let's block any initiative in the Congress that creates jobs. As long as it's an Obama idea, stop it! "Our priority is to make sure this president doesn't get a second term." (McConnell) Who cares about the people? They are just stupid individuals who vote on representatives that will later on get money from the big corporations that act against us.
- I am losing my home, but who cares? Romney said it all, "let it get to the bottom" - so I must be just a faithful disciple! I am not blind, I just don't care about myself and my family.
- Let's get rid of Obama. He wants to strengthen the middle class, and this is unacceptable. Let's go back to Bush, who almost destroyed the middle class. That's what we need. If I am middle class but I will be fine becoming part of the poor class, no problem. I am just too smart.
- Those who don't want health insurance should not be forced to pay a fine. They should be allowed to go to the hospital at any time and get free treatment. Why should they pay for anything? There is already a bunch of idiots out there that work every day and pay taxes so that those who refuse to have health insurance may have treatment for free. This is just great!
- It's OK to spend trillions on irrelevant and unending wars. There are many people making money on this business, and that's what matters. Losing 4,500 of our best troops is not a problem, having tens of thousands of injured soldiers back home is irrelevant, and having killed hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis is OK as long as we are looking for WMD. Chenney said they are somewhere out there, we gotta find them... And Bush said it's the right "strategery"... so, go for it!
- And this President, ohhhh, this President...Give me a break, he is half black! We are not yet prepared for this. America so far had only white presidents. Why to change it now? And there is still the danger that he will fight for the middle class and help millions of citizens to better off their lives. That can't happen! Imagine: better education for our kids! The guy must be crazy.
- So much more I could add to this list, but I think that at this time everyone already got the idea, and manu have just now decided to support the Tea Party.

Ohhh, I am so smart! I am a Tea-Party genius!!!

Keep LOL ROFL, and have lots of fun.

I remember my parents telling me of a Priest in their home town (Ostrava, Czech Rep) that was so much committed to the poor people in that place. How he was always doing something to help those in need. (Just to be clear, those were NOT the rich in town at that time).

But it is obvious that the "great commission" has changed a little bit now...
Is it called now "the great omission?"

Fr Jim
"I on the other hand support helping them to not be poor nor to become dependents on Uncle Sam. You know, teach them to fish not just give them a fish." Could you expand on that and explain how a hard-right representative of Jesus deals with the poor? In what way is your approach different from, let's say, a priest of liberal (as in 'compassion with the poor') leanings?

When responsible Tea Party members and their Republican standard bearers disavow the cruel, disingenuous, and unchristian sentiments expressed by the characters quoted in this animation, I will agree that a “broad brush” has been used to demonize all Tea Partiers. Until then, I must confess that I enjoyed this “animated” response to the trash talk that infects my email account and pollutes the airways.

Aage, I don't see liberals as compassionate and conservatives as not. I reject that simplistic view. A conservative sees it as compassionate to provide opportunities for someone to achieve their best. Just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. Give cash to an alcoholic and he buys booze. He has to take personal responsibility for his sobriety. A conservative knows that government is not the solution to every problem and can't solve every problem.

Alesis, as a conservative I thank you for rising above the usual name calling.

Andrew, I went to liberal universities and can give you a belly full of the trash talk and viciousness I endured.

John Mark, the irony is that George W. Bush was a "compassionate" conservative in many ways. Yet he was bashed without mercy. Catholic social teaching supports a market economy with appropriate safeguards for the poor and disabled. Private property is not a crime. Centesimus Annus is a good place to start. I am less concerned with Rush then with the Michael Moore's out there.

Fr Jim
"George W. Bush was a "compassionate" conservative in many ways. Yet he was bashed without mercy."

Yes, but not for his 'compassion.' Bush supported AIDS programs in Africa, and everybody praised him for it. Bush was bashed for starting a war on false pretenses and mismanaging the economy. That's different.

As for your philosophy of charity, you and EGW would have gotten along like peas in a pod. She, like you, distinguished between the worthy and the unworthy poor, and sent the alcoholic to the Salvation Army for food. No wonder you like Rush Limbaugh better than Michael Moore.

Your response brought to mind a clip from at meeting last week-end between Santorum and a woman who wondered what he would do to help a friend of hers whose two-year old was likely to die from cancer for lack of money to pay for chemotherapy. Santorum, irritated, scolded her for thinking that the government should do something for her. Drug prices were a function of market forces, he argued, and that was the way it had to do. It was shocking in its callousness. Government is not an alien entity imposed on us; government is what we call it when we pool our resources in order to create a better society than what individuals could do on their own. A society that provides security for all people, rich or poor, is a better society than that envisioned by Social Darwinists, who love winners and hate losers--the 1 percent society. A society 'red in tooth and claw' is something we all should fight against.

Fr. Jim unfortunately I have not yet had the opportunity to study Catholic social thought first hand; instead my exposure to it comes from a friend I met in the blogosphere who is a well read ardent follower of these ideas and of Classical Conservatism of the 18th and 19th century Burkean variety. My understanding of this thinking is that it's not so much a pure ideology as it is a anti - utopian opposition to harmful effect of all pure isms. It believes that human living has an intrinsic value that transcends material values and that's society's highest goal is to protect that. It believes man is inherently sinful and that power is a corrupting influence so it supports a society of checks and balances between all players; thus, a purely free market economy is thought of as a threat at it lends to big money having absolute power, and a centralized economy is generally opposed as it gives absolute power to the state. Ultimately this thinking is pragmatic in nature since it believes human life has intrinsic value - to paraphrase the words of the Master, ideology is made to serve mankind and not mankind to serve ideology.

This is my kind of conservatism, I can't say for sure whether it's the conservatism of the Rerum Novarum or Edmund Burke as I have only heard about those second hand. Now perhaps this is your kind of conservatism as well, but if so, it seems strange that you are so uncritical of the GOP and the Tea Party. It seems to me American conservatism take more from the likes of Ayn Rand, Friedich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, as they do from Edmund Burke. The fact that Rand has any influence at all should cause Christians pause. Rand mocked the cross, and essentially built a whole philosophy that placed original sin as the greatest virtue. The coincidence of Republican politics and Randian thought's similarities should give Christian conservatives great pause.

However, classical conservatives don't have to just look at the ideological and philosophical level to be dismayed. Republican tax policy would not be called conservative in any sense of the word except the American political sense. All but about five congressmen have signed the Norquist pledge to never ever raise taxes. I could be convinced that now is not the time to raise taxes, but it's a lot less convincing when the entire party has taken a pledge that requires them to not even critically think about it regardless of economic or political circumstances. Not raising taxes is taken as some kind of a-priori principle. It's worse then saying people are to serve an inflexible ideology because it's not even an ideology it's a policy position. Essentially we have a party has decided a policy (not even a principle) is more important than what might happen to real flesh and blood people living out in the real world. If conservative meant actually conserving things this would be called anti-conservative. It should at least bother you as a pro-lifer that the party is much more willing to accept people who don't tow the line over protecting human life, then it will accept people who don't tow the line on people who don't tow the line on never raising tax rates on the wealthy.

Then's there's the Republican foreign policy of Bush that had more in common with Wilsonian liberalism (making the world safe for democracy) then it did classical conservatism. There's the rampant sense of xenophobia in the ranks of the tea party when it comes to immigration. You mention Bush's "compassionate conservatism," but haven't you noticed that 12 year old rhetoric is about as popular as leprosy among today's tea party? I think I am also a conservative politically but I don't find much conservative about the GOP or the tea party and wonder why you are so uncritical of it.

As a final note I will add that I can't support the Democratic Party either. I can't support a party that will nominate judges who make taking human life protected by the constitution. I can't support a party that appoints Judges that undermine the constitution by appointing a judiciary with a bogus living constitution theory of interpretation. I can't support a Party that supported Partial Birth Abortion and a president that opposed Born Alive Infant Protection Act. So essentially I'm stuck voting the dangerous reactionary/libertarian Republican fiscal policy, or voting for Dems and hoping not too many judges retire on their watch.

Hold on.... There was Fr. Jim, and now there is Pr. Jim???

Yes, my real name is James, but since a kid I've been Jimmy then Jim. Everyone at church calls me "Pr Jim" - except for my wife, and we won't be divulging her term of endearment in public, shall we!!!!

Aage at best that's a very oversimplified version of originalism. First of all amendments are recognized as completely valid, so all that about slavery and voting rights are complete strawmen, the Reconstruction amendments took care of that. Also while orginalism has generally been adopted by conservatives who are inclined to error on the side of narrowness, at its best it means interpreting what was meant narrowly, narrowly, and interpreting what was meant broadly, broadly. Akhil Amer a Yale constitutional scholar I am a big fan of, has actually articulated that originalism could favor liberalism more than what is thought, but it has been hijacked by conservatives who coincidentally find the constitution to read just like the GOP platform. For example, the original intent of the fourteenth amendment (I did my capstone undergrad history research on this btw), originally had a much more liberal intent than what it was given in the 1873 Slaughter House Cases. If that court followed originalism, they would have had to grant civil rights about eight decades sooner. Most importantly though, originalism is the only way I see to ensure that the constitution is fully expressed in limiting the elected branches of government, while not giving unlimited power to un-elected branch.

John,
I know, we differ a little on this "pro-" issue. Look, I am not in favor of "pro-choice no matter what." I am against the principle/practice of abortion. I don't know how extreme you stand in the "Pro-life" position, and wherever you are I have no problem with it at all. Every person has the right to their own preference.

On my side, though, I think that a couple o factors are to be considered, and I am not trying to persuade you, or convince you on this, just mentioning my personal rationale:

1) In case of rape, there is no doubt that I support "cleaning the mess." So people say, "if God permitted the rape, the child belongs to Him and needs to be saved." For me, this is absurd thinking.
2) I don't support the government legislating on this issue. This is a family issue. Many people complain of government interference into our lives, but then they want government to intrude on this one very forcefully.
3) When there is "Nature's error" and a little monster is being formed instead of a normal child, well....
4) I support contraception as a measure to control things a little bit better than just let Nature be wild...
5) Just saw on TV, that 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives. The RCC needs to get more real on this issue. (I am not saying this stats is accurate, it appears to be a little bit "too high" but that's what they are saying today)

Well, just some thoughts on this issue. And it's just my personal view, I am not expecting anyone else to agree with me on this.

1) Above a certain amount of income, same (low) tax rates for ALL people equally. (The very poor, low income need the money to eat, not to pay taxes).

2) A strong dollar should not be used to pay for flaw wars that were invented just so that certain industries could make more money. This will weaken the dollar.

3) Free trade is great. But there is a problem when certain governments offer tax incentives for industries to move to China.

4) That's probably one the few things I expect from the government, to regulate businesses so that they won't exploit people. Self-regulation equates to Romney's "self-deportation." Mere utopia.

5) The smaller the better. But what is the pragmatic definition of "limited government." Government has not decreased, it's always growing. GOP proposes this all the time. When was the last time that a Rep government actually decreased government? It was certainly not under Busch. It seems that mere rhetoric are been played with this, but no effective action was ever taken!

6) I agree. No government should do what the Bush government did: getting cash in the bank, spending it all, then putting us in the red badly. And then... blame Obama for everything!

7) This is why, unfortunately, unions are needed. Otherwise businesses would just escalate prices, paying minimal wages to their employees, and soon the middle class would be defunct. It's a tragedy that unions are needed so badly. But, what else could work for fair pay?

8) I support privatization 100%. But when the private sector has no self-control, and abuse the public, it's the government responsibility to protect the People. Try health insurance companies for example... In my opinion the government should offer an alternative non-profit insurance. Otherwise we will pay for the high bill every month, with a huge deductible, and often with a denial of services when needed.

9) This is why the Obama administration is starting a new program to modernize our defenses. (But despite this, some Rep Candidates keep telling the public some BS about it).

10) Jobs, jobs, jobs - only way to sent people to work!. Why is it that the Reps killed every single bill in Congress that was expected to create jobs. In 2010 many were elected on the promise of "creating jobs." How many job-bills did they introduce in Congress so far? ZERO! And killed all those bills that the Dems/Obama introduced.

Obama is fighting to keep the wage taxes low for the middle class, while the Reps want to increase them.
Obama is fighting for a fare share of taxes by the rich. The Reps will kill any bill that makes rich people to pay the same taxes I pay. I can understand that those who are rich (1%) will certainly disagree with me on this one! But, if someone who is in the 99% disagrees with me on it, I would say... have an IQ test done, fast!!! Because you are most probably voting against yourself - and this will hurt you and your family very quickly!

Enough of tea. Let's get some real coffee!!!

Aage,

It's interesting how in America "the original intent" of the founding fathers is a sacred cow. Everyone wants to speak for them. It's been a challenge in this country to just read what is written. Everything is geared toward the founding fathers - people whose actual thoughts nobody knows, people who never dreamed with the modern society of our days and its correlated problems and challenges. But nevertheless they are constantly invoked as gods.

Whys would the founding fathers' thoughts be that much relevant today? We don't even know their thoughts!

It is actually similar to what some people do with the Bible, pretending that it's too difficult to read and understand what is just written. Some need another 100,000 pages to explain the obvious..., i.e., what is already written. Aahhh, the dependency on the "founding mother."

TJG Old Buddy:

I am not disputing your info on the "facts" but I sure would like to know what reliable source are you consulting on this.

Also let's check if those bills are "clean bills" or if they have those famous attachments that hurt people badly in another areas - and the Dems have to stall them because of that.

Be aware that the Reps have created some bills that have the appearance of being good stuff, but usually they have some clauses that end up benefiting the rich, the corporations, and hurting the middle class. For those, I agree that stalling them is in the People's best interest. For more on this, see the Paul Ryan's bill....

Fr. Jim,

"Rational discussion does not seem possible when the other side argues in slogans (Bush lied, people died or war for oil and the other usual moronic lies)." You must be kidding! Slogans, moronic lies? Where were you at that time???

Regarding to Romney's statement, you can say what you want. He repeated this idea several times. He sounds like "OK" with the poor where they are. Did he ever present one single plan on how to pull them out of poverty? No! The are "just fine."

No. The poor are not "just fine." They need help, they need a plan, they need jobs. Romney didn't present a single plan in this regard yet. But I know, he can always flip-flop, and this would be the only hope poor people have, that, if elected, he will flip-flop and start working on their behalf.

Do you actually believe it's gonna happen? I don't. I mean, I don't believe he will be elected, and even if so, he would rather protect those "other people"...., you know, "corporations are people my friend"...

You talked about options. Well I see only two options:
1) Republicans: working only for the rich class, and big corporations. Low taxes for rich, middle class, who cares? Tax them higher!
2) Democrats: keeping the middle class a priority. Fair taxes, same taxes for all who can pay. The rich should not get away with more benefits than the middle class.

I can't speak for Jesus, but do you sincerely believe that he would go to your pulpit to preach along with you on this subject? His actions and words suggest different to me. I think that it'a a Christian responsibility to take care of those who need most, not of those who had more than plenty (they can take care of themselves...).

George, you didn't listen to the whole quote. You just pulled it from some liberal whack job website. It is only partial and designed to make him look bad. Adventists do this to Catholics all the time! I guess it is part of that new era of civility eh? Democrats do nothing other then make more poor. Once dependent on the Dems they become wards of the state. Then they will vote Democrat to keep all the goodies. Until we become Greece and it all falls apart. 15 trillion in debt and counting, most of it due to Obama. Dems don't want a middle class. They want us enslaved. Jesus would not be a Democrat said party which sacrifices infants to the abortion god. I say that in a bipartisan and civil way.

Heaven will be socialist? Stalin will be pleased. However, I doubt heaven will have a materialist basis for its economy.

John Mark
"But the constitutional scholars who practice eisegesis are the living constitution theorists." This is one context in which I'm comfortable with eisegesis. After all, we're not dealing with sacred scripture, but a flawed piece of paper from the 1780s that has repeatedly been patched to preserve its relevance. Scalia's doctrine of constitutional interpretation has a lot going for it, if we see the Constitution primarily as an historical document. If you want to write the history of the American republic, original intent, as far as it can be determined, needs to be addressed. What, precisely, did the Founders have in mind when they wrote the document? But if you want to use it--as opposed to legislation--as a continuing arbiter of life in these United States, its principles need to be reapplied in constantly new ways, otherwise it'll be relegated to the dustbin of history.

By the way, we didn't need the Supreme Court to tell us in 1954 that segregation was a conspiracy hatched against African-Americans, and that it was illegal. Legislators with the guts to take on racism in high places could have passed laws to ban it (they eventually did, in 1964 and 1965). Griswald found a right to privacy in the Constitution that legalized contraception. Legislators could have solved that problem at any time. The same with Roe v Wade. Congress could have legalized abortion, and that would have been the end of it--and possibly of the unique relevance of the Supreme Court.

Democracy without a constitution that protects the rights of minorities, amounts to majority dictatorship (which is the reality Blacks lived under until the mid 60s). There is a vast difference between a democracy (think Gaza with its democratically elected Hamas movement) and a constitutional democracy. We need the Supreme Court to ride herd on the legislators to make sure that those constitutional principles are upheld, but there should ideally be no need for a Supreme Court that legislates from the bench, the way SCOTUS does. In other countries legislators can rely on a national consensus that allows them to pass laws that settle the issues of today. In the US no such consensus exists, and for that reason the Constitution must be tweaked and stretched so as to cover for an impotent Congress.

Fr Jim
" Dems don't want a middle class. They want us enslaved. Jesus would not be a Democrat said party which sacrifices infants to the abortion god. I say that in a bipartisan and civil way."

I'd hate to hear what you'd say about Democrats when you're not bipartisan and civil. When I read about Father Coughlin's right-wing, antisemitic rant-driven radio crusade of the 1930s, I thought he must have been a rogue Catholic. I know you're not antisemitic, but apart from that, in which ways do you differ from him? My wife walked in on me when I was reading your latest posts. "Can you believe this guy is a Catholic priest?" I asked her. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this website to have wondered the same. I can only shake my head at the vitriol that's spewing from your pen. I'm not referring to your being a conservative. That's fine with me--but the language, the lack of civility, the crudeness of the rhetoric ("whack job," what kind of language is that for a priest?). I know what you're going to say: I'm just recirculating the vile rhetoric of liberals, the people who've persecuted me ever since I was in college. Let me as an atheist remind you that Jesus set the bar for acceptable behavior a bit higher than that. Fr Jim, you need to reform and represent your church better. (Orders direct from my Jesuit general).

Trash! Glad there is no truth to it. I guess you can trash anyone with lies and misinformation in the name of Jesus if you have no moral conscience. Oh well, I guess I didn't expect anything else from Spectrum.

"John Mark, I am not a follower of Rand. I prefer Reagan. I do not think that Catholic social teaching is socialistic. "

Fr. Jim I never suggested it was, in fact, I was quite clear that my understanding is that it condemns socialism. However, I also doubt it is Reaganite. Reagan was certainly not a classical conservative in starting us down the track of deficit based prosperity. The compassionate conservatism of Bush came close to its' ideal in rhetoric, unfortunately Bush's incompetent tax policy didn't pay for his compassion. I suppose Catholic teaching is broad enough to allow a lot of variety in political thought. There's even Socialists. From my layman's perch it seems both Socialism and the reckless economic libertarianism of the GOP are at best on the fringes of the big tent of Catholic teaching as laid out in such works as the Rerum Novarum; but I'm admittedly no expert.

"It's not that I am uncritical of the GOP, but the rampant hate directed at them drives me to defend what I see as my only viable alternative. Rational discussion does not seem possible when the other side argues in slogans (Bush lied, people died or war for oil and the other usual moronic lies)."

This is where I really part ways with you. I agree with you that the political discourse in America is absolutely rotten. However, your solution seems to be to give everyone a taste of their own medicine. It baffles me that someone who works with people for a living considers this an effective solution for poor discourse. Respond to fools foolishly and you'll just get more foolishness. Raise your own discourse and the more balanced minds will engage in the higher discourse, and the fools will get bored with the conversation and leave. On politics and religion, however, you seem to relish getting down in the mud with the fools and fighting tit-for-tat. Your argument is always that the other side started it; well that may be true but it doesn't change the fact that when you wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I'm a die hard liberal and I can agree with certain points raised by tg.

I think we do have to be careful that the federal gov't does not gain too much power. At the same time though, I also think we have to be careful that the private market system does not gain too much power either. I don't trust either one with my well-being frankly.

Too much gov't means too much waste, unhelpful regulation that stifles economic growth for everyone, and abuse of civil liberties. Too much private market power means abuse of those less powerful (especially the worker), poisoning of our environment that we all share, and unchecked greed leading to economic disaster (which we have just witnessed).

I think we need a balance. I deeply disagree that we middle class people will be better off the weaker the federal gov't is. Yes it is inefficient, clumsy, and sometimes wrong. The private sector might be more efficient but it is run by people who will take my last drop of sweat and think I should thank them for it. It is core human nature to exploit others and feel justified in doing so. A wisely regulated market is a win IMO, but you can't have a wisely regulated market when you can drown the federal gov't in the bathtub.

Aage Rendalen,

You misread what I wrote. I said that the flaw with a minimalist approach was that it allows tyranny of the majority, which is one reason I favor an originalist approach instead. Originalism allows the court to reign in the majority when the constitution does. An originalist approach would have read the Bill of Rights into the constitution through the fourteenth amendment much sooner. The eisegesis of the 1873 Slaughter House case was strict constructionism, but IMO it was hardly originalism. The history behind the broadly stated and hotly debated fourteenth amendment did not suggest that the court was right in such a narrow reading that in many ways nullified the recently passed amendment. This is an example of the fact that the nine robed men are not always going to be on the side of minority rights. A constitution is not going to be perfect in its checks and balances and protections for the minority, but it still beats the opinion of nine lawyers. What authority reigns these people in, if not the authority of the constitution?

Fr. Jim,

I grew up listening to lots and lots of talk radio, and I can only say that with the entire AM spectrum dedicated to that drivel for the last 20 years or so, conservative indeed deserve a lot of the blame for the style of discourse. Whatever the case, it doesn't really matter to me, all you're doing is wrestling with pigs, you're not actually going to change anything because you "fight hard," on random blogs. But I guess it's good entertainment for some folks.

Fr Jim
One of my criticisms of Christendom is that it has always tended to turn Christianity into a cognitive and ritualistic cult divorced from the Sermon on the Mount. To me an AM-radio ranting priest of the Fr Coughlin type is just as dishonorable as the Southern Baptist clergyman who'd serve as chaplain for the local Klan. Of what use is faith if it makes people poison the lives of their fellow human beings.

You also have a strange way of assessing offense. During the Bush administration vile liberals kept attacking President Bush. During the Obama administration, the same vile liberals kept attacking those who criticized the President (the loyal opposition, those who, out of the goodness of their heart kept smearing the President as an African Muslim, the Antichrist and what not.) In your universe Conservatives are a poor, persecuted, good-hearted minority constantly at the mercy of their 'Democrat' oppressors. I'm currently reading Walter Isakson's Steve Jobs biography in which he lays out Jobs' tendency to distort reality in order to keep the factual world at bay. Well, in you he has a soul brother. We don't live in a Manichean world where good and evil is distributed along party lines--or religions lines. I totally reject your version of Christianity--and I wouldn't be surprised if most Catholics agreed with me.

Hate speech? Seriously you jest? Long live King Aage....ooops I just said something hateful.

I never case to be amazed at the number of Adventists who day humanity is woefully corrupt which is why we need the law who then turn around and argue against market regulation as though businesses, human institutions will do the right thing without them ... did you learn nothing from the GFC? The erosion of market regulation not only lead to woefully unethical practices, they were also dangerous...

"If you want civility then be civil yourself."

Totally agree. It seems you don't want it.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Your not a die hard liberal if you have any reservations about the size of government! You might even like a lot of the tea party ideas, if you checked them out direct instead of through the misrepresentations of the New York Times et al

ODS
You need to get out more. You ask: "Would someone please show me where bigger government and higher taxes and more regulation made life better for anyone but the elite officials who run the government machine." Let me introduce you to Northern Europe. Here you have sound economies, health care for all--and more importantly--it's half the price of US health care with better outcomes. Tuition for college and university as well as trade schools is free. Women enjoy paid maternity leaves, reasonable child care, and their children generally have access to better quality schools than in the US. To US conservatives Europe is Greece and Italy, where endemic corruption and crony capitalism have been a fact of life for a long time. That's like using Louisiana and Mississippi to describe the United States. The US today is in about 10th place when it comes to social mobility. You have a greater chance of getting a good education and get a well-paying job in nine other countries. (As Bill Mahr said, That's like Sweden placing 10th in Swedish meatballs.)

But they pay for it. There is no free lunch, as you say. Taxes are higher, but the 99% have a better life than they have here in the US. Go to a swearing-in ceremony for immigrants. There's hardly a European to be seen among the candidates for citizenship.

Government, in a constitutional democracy, is not an alien, oppressive entity hell-bent on subjugating its citizens. The government is 'we the people' getting together, pooling our resources, to do great things. Traditionally, the only people who hated government were the rich and powerful, who did not like the idea of 'pooling resources' for the common good. Nor did they like the idea of having the 'rabble' restrict their freedom to do whatever they wanted to enhance their wealth and power.

And the socialist paradise you toss in is a straw man you might as well toss out. The only country that tried it out was Russia, and neither it nor the countries it imposed that system on, could get it to work. Western Europe always rejected it, opting instead for democratic socialism, which simply means a strong public sector combined with free market capitalism. But since you haven't been to Europe, I imagine you know better.

Spectrum seems more like a political organization rather than a religious movement within the Adventist church.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Your not a die hard liberal if you have any reservations about the size of government! You might even like a lot of the tea party ideas, if you checked them out direct instead of through the misrepresentations of the New York Times et al

I am aware of tea party ideas. I can agree with some of them in abstract, but I don't think they are a solution to our current situation. You are responding to some made up idea of what a liberal is if you think we aren't concerned about the size of gov't too. I hang with quite a few liberals, and I don't know anyone in real life who thinks the gov't should just keep expanding. Most of us just think that right now, things are tipped a little too much in favor of the powerful in private industry.

You asked when regulations improved my life? Well, let me see if I can list a few. The food I eat is safer, the drugs I take are safer, the air I breathe is cleaner, the water I drink is cleaner, the cars I drive are safer, the products I use everyday are safer, the salary I receive and the hours I can be forced to work are more reasonable if I work a low-skill job, the utilities I pay for are more reasonably priced, the toys my children play with are safer, the workplace environment I work in is safer, and my children are not employed. I'm sure I can come up with some more given time. However, I am well aware that too much regulation can choke our economy and make us less competitive. It can be hard to know where the right balance is.

I think that if gov't regulations were lifted around these things, private industry would not be able to regulate itself. Not because those who run it are evil, but simply because of competition. The temptation to cut corners is too great when your competitor is cutting too. Environmental safeguards would be the first to go. The private market does wonders at making money and driving our economy, but can easily do it at the expense of the majority of us who are not in charge. Thus my belief in balance.

I am a liberal because I believe in giving up some of what benefits me directly for the common good. That doesn't mean that the more money we give the gov't the better. But I do think the gov't needs a reasonable amount of money to do much needed things, including providing a safety net for those whom the system has chewed up and spit out.

This should have never been posted on an Adventist site. Jesus never said to make it governement responsibility to care for others. He said it is ours; individually and as a church. The government has no business legislating social economics. As a matter of a fact, this is a sign of the times; the people crying out for peace and safety. 1 Thessalonians 5:3 Health is also not government responsibility, it is individual responsibility. That is why we are educating our churches and communities, and we do it much more economically than the government. The debt alone is reason enough to get the government out of these things and hand it over to the church. Along with this socialism we are experiencing, we are killing babies every day. Would you really, really say Adventist tax money should be paying for killing babies?

Beth
Very much to the point. The government is "we the people" getting together to solve problems that no church or constellation of churches has ever shown any inclination to want to solve. Churches are into charity, which is good, but charity is rarely more than bandaid.

George
There are people who are against abortion and capital punishment because they believe in the sanctity of life. I understand this to be the Catholic position. Evangelicals don't seem to believe in the sanctity of life. To them the issue is innocence. The unborn are innocent and must therefore be spared. The guilty, however, can be killed. Their life is not sacred.

Fr. Jim

You might go further back in the post WWI war and the creation of Iraq by the Britsh to secure a land route to India. It brought together disparate peoples. The Kurds were the first to revolt. Several Britsh soldiers were killed. The Britsh turned to bombing villages. The rules of war should be that the heads of state square off in a deul first. Then if the nation that loses want to shed more blood--then and only then would war between states begin. First Bush, Then Cheney, Then Karl Rove, then war. Far better than Cheney shooting a lawyer. Tom Z

Aage, meet Beth, Fr. Jim, ODS, TJG, baba, and Pr Jim.

Aage,
Again meet meet Beth, Fr. Jim, ODS, TJG, baba, and Pr Jim. Last I checked they haven't included their full names here either. Are you suggesting they aren't being "up front" about who they are? Or maybe you're like Julian Assange and believe privacy should not exist. If so then you should love the US government. Do you have nothing better to do than join Alex in his quest of revenge and hate? Why exactly are you going around trying to stalk others? Are you part of some secret police or something? Just because I disagree with your ideology doesn't mean you have to go on a warpath of "outing". If an individual wants to use their username supposedly on Spectrum they used to have that right without being harassed and intimidated. Guess times have changed now that we are so "progressive".

George,
It seems you don't grasp what has happened. I was "outed" I don't know why. A.C. has not been fair as both John Mark, David Read, and others have pointed out. Do I need to quote from John Mark above? I am not "whining" that people are hiding behind nicknames. What I am merely pointing out however is the double standard of allowing some to "hide behind nicknames" why not allowing others? I personally believe we should all be able to to "hide behind nicknames" if we so choose, which is why I am saddened that this courtesy was not granted to me. Before you tell me to "get a life" how about you first start practicing a little civility, eh? Practice what you preach. It wouldn't hurt Alexander (AC) and it certainly wouldn't hurt you.

Oh..., I get it now!
So you ARE NOT hiding behind a nickname right now, but you are just "saddened" that you have been "outed" and cannot now hide behind a nickname, correct?

Yeap, this is very unfair!....
You certainly have a point... Keep making your case.

Tom, we could go further and talk about the Romans invading Britain. It's all the Italians fault. Most people wouldn't fault Cheney for shooting a lawyer. I speak as one myself. I hate to inform you, but war predates Bush and the Republicans. I believe we had a war under FDR, wasn't he a Democrat? Vietnam got rolling under Kennedy and Johnson, what party did they belong too?

He Who As, I think everyone does know my name and who I am. I have been on here for several years. However, I agree that your name should not have been revealed without your permission.

"It is a private forum. They can "out" anybody they want. So, as the man said, "Get a life."

That doesn't make it ethical. When there's an allowed assumption that anonymity will be protected. There's even a statement in the comment box that the contents of the email is kept private. That could be interpreted to mean that the anything deduced from the email or other facets of privacy will also be protected. I agree the gentleman called way more attention to himself than necessary, but Alex needs to decide if this site will allow anonymity or not, and then be upfront about it.

Folks, while this is a valid 'meta-issue', which is one reason I commented, above, it is off topic. With perhaps the exception of austudent, I would hope the rest of us would return to the actual subject ostensibly :-) under discussion.

Jason
Apart from uttering inarticulate slurs against Obama and whining about your blown cover, what's on your mind? What did you want to share with us?

Aage, just remember what John Mark said "Alex needs to decide if this site will allow anonymity or not, and then be upfront about it." AC can be happy to know he has a sidekick, but the rest of us would like a bit of consistency. It is sad that ideology drives people to such extremes that they resort to using public forms to post long satire about their opposition. A comment is appropriate enough, no need to turn Spectrum into a Daily Kos.

Jason
Your initial posting was this:

"Typical bashing by Alex and Spectrum of anyone to the right of Karl Marx. Long live President Messiah...err Obama."

Your last was this:
"It is sad that ideology drives people to such extremes that they resort to using public forms to post long satire about their opposition. A comment is appropriate enough, no need to turn Spectrum into a Daily Kos."

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't have known that these two posts were written by one and the same person. You can't have it both ways, unless you feel that you are in a special category and should be able to sling mud without being confronted about it.

But again, apart from slinging mud at the President (whom Paul mandates you pray for), why did you show up here? Or was that it?

No Rich, not talking about you. I was responding specifically to one person ONLY as the posting itself makes clear. You've been pretty fair, though I still believe I'm correct when I say that "the rest of us like a bit of consistency". From what I've seen commenters like it when a policy is consistent (which as you noted Spectrum has previously done a good job with). I wish Alex were like you in this, instead of trying to get revenge (as he has already admitted anonymously). Aage, I think one should be able to post on here without being forced to use their full name if they choose. I still believe Spectrum can be a good forum to discuss issues and provide information, but original postings such as this video remind me that this idea is still not a reality. The video makes some good points about hypocrisy (every ideology has some element of it), but does so in such a biting matter as to turn off those who are not already despisers of the tea party.

Jason
I'll let Alex explain why he outed you, but the issue certainly was not anonymity. My guess is, as I have said above, that it was caused by your overt disrespect and hostility towards the President of the US--uttered under the guise of an anonymity you don't normally resort to. It was a malicious slur that you wouldn't expect from an educated and articulate political science major. I was about to add 'and Christian,' but I better not require more of you than I do of myself, a non-Christian.

If President Obama is reelected this fall, which seems overwhelmingly probable, my fear is that his life will be at risk. When you have a third the population whipped up in a frenzy against a President they regard as the Antichrist or the reincarnation of Robespierre or Joseph Stalin, it behooves us all to do our part to tamp down the crazy. I hope you'll reconsider your rhetoric.

Aage
I expected Obama to have been assinated long before this but I think even the most crazy of the neo Nazis recognise such a move would touch off a civil war of disasterous porporations and hasten the collapse of America.

While it is true that the USA is well past its best before date it can carry on for a while yet if there is the civility to do so. Having said that it is obvious to me as an outside observer that the men seeking the presidential nomination for the GOP are the dredges from the bottom of the barrel so to speak.

America is following in the footsteps of all the great empires of history where wealth and power accumulates to the few and the most venal and corrupt are in charge.

Well Beth, God loves a cheerful giver. I'm not so sure how he feels about you wanting to take my charitable gifts away from me by force. Seems out of character for Him, but I could be wrong. God bless RobinHood.

You don't know if the governmet charity systerm we have works better than a voluntary charitable system, since that isn't what we have. I know that I screen charities that I give to more carefully and don't give any more to charities that build their programs on government tax money, ie.the local food bank that I discovered ran most of it's program as a referal program for food stamps and other federal programs that I already pay for through my taxes!

I'm still not sure you are a real liberal. You seem to be more thoughtful than that. Keep thinking about the results not the intent. We all want a better fed, clothed, medically cared for, etc etc world. Seems to me that a healthy economy not inhibited by unreal government debt, printing press money and sufocating taxes and regulations so that real jobs are pletiful works best.

Keep thinking.

PS Have you ever noticed how every time the minimum wage goes up, unemployment in general and minority youth in particular goes up? Just a thought.

George,
I'm trying to move on from this. Aage has recognized it and so could you. I suppose however that if you disagree with a view then it's not interesting? I don't post on here to show my "displeasure" at AC. I do it because I believe that an ethical wrong was committed and the only response I've gotten when trying to redress the situation is further harassment (I'm talking about off-spectrum actions). As for "being disrespectful" to President Obama...since when was there a behavior police here on Spectrum. One can "disrespect" the Tea Party and Republicans, but if there is disrespect for Obama it's suddenly "off limits"? Seems there's a double standard there. My first post was in response to the extreme caricature created by the video about a group that isn't completely heterogeneous. I did not expect "outing" however as punishment for my speaking out. There are better ways to discuss these issues than mocking videos like what is posted above.

John Mark,
It's actually kinda hard to do that since I've been forced to play with usernames. I guess boring plain ones like this could do the trick?

John Mark,
Did AC get to you too? No need to be sarcastic, especially since I was being serious. Once one is "outed" it's basically the secret is out so no point trying to "cover up" by running away. Perhaps the most recent one is better, or is that still to "boring" for the Spectrumites? Granted I won't be posting on any other articles, but still might as well finish this one up. I thought you said what AC did was unethical, unprofessional and inconsistent. As I said I'm trying to move on and you will notice that my last posts have reflected statements about the video unless I was responding directly to another commenter. It would be nice if the original post (such as the video) could have more toned down rhetoric so as not to encourage unnecessary rhetoric. This seems to be a problem with both sides of the ideological spectrum, for example, both with the Tea Party and "Occupy".

No anger George, both liberals and conservatives (as well as those in the middle) can be "thoughtful". There are smart people in every group...yes even the tea party.

paz,, and George,
Sorry but the opportunity for sarcasm was too much of a temptation. :-). And Paz I didn't change my mind about Alex (who btw I would expect more from considering he's moderator and not some college kid surfing the web for kicks), but that doesn't preclude me from being amused by the self contradiction of drawing lots and lots of attention to yourself because you lost your anonymity.