Althouse: Bush is down to 29% in the polls. Congress is at 23%.

June 14, 2007

Bush is down to 29% in the polls. Congress is at 23%.

We don't much like anyone these days.

79 comments:

jimbino said...: We could improve the situation overnight if we voted in a constitutional amendment to bar lawyers from all top offices.; 6/14/07, 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Love, love, love the headline: "Republicans abandoning Bush." No bias there.

It's a variation of the old "World ends; women, minorities hardest hit."

Here we have: People think the federal government sucks; Republicans, Bush most reviled. This despite the fact that the Democratically-controlled House and Senate have even lower ratings. I wonder what level support for a Democratically-controlled Congress would have to be before people started abandoning Democrats?; 6/14/07, 12:54 PM
J. Cricket said...: Congress is not a person, Ann. I thought you took such great care with every word.

Ask about approval of one's own member of Congress and the ratings are always high. It's the institution that people do not like. But with Bush, it is not the institution that is held in such low esteem. It is the man himself.

With the exception of some folks around here who fawn over Professor A-House, there are very few people in the entire country who think that W is doing a good job. Period.; 6/14/07, 12:54 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: The Democratic Congress is completely abysmal. If you compare it to the Republican takeover in 1994, this Congress has done nothing other than disgrace America abroad.

Moreover, they can't even do things they promised that do not require a signature by Bush - things such as earmark reform and reducing corruption. Now Pelosi wants family members to get free flights... how pathetic.; 6/14/07, 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: So the fact that 23 percent of polled people don't like Congress means nothing but the fact that 29 percent of the same people don't like the president is a meaningful result. That's AJD's brilliant argument.

As I say, brilliant! All you have to do is draw a goofy semantical distinction and -- poof! -- everybody hates Bush and what they think of Congress doesn't matter.

I envy you.; 6/14/07, 1:01 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Ask about approval of one's own member of Congress and the ratings are always high.

Which supports the saying: all politics are local.; 6/14/07, 1:07 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I have heard the AJD's argument before. It has some merit.

But elected leaders are increasingly tone deaf. They select priorities and undertake agendas which makes the public scratch their collective heads and arouses great ire against pols. The internets and blogs keep the public more and more informed.

I see tough sledding for good old incumbents even if much anticipated arrival of global warming is delayed.; 6/14/07, 1:15 PM
Revenant said...: Love, love, love the headline: "Republicans abandoning Bush." No bias there.

Seven, while I would never dream of disagreeing that the media suffers from left-wing bias, that headline is entirely accurate. Bush's approval rating among Republicans is dropping, and that drop is the primary driving force in his declining poll numbers.

This despite the fact that the Democratically-controlled House and Senate have even lower ratings.

Well, it had lower approval ratings than Bush when the Republicans controlled it, too. It is the institution of Congress that people hate.; 6/14/07, 1:17 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Everything's hanging....

...18 months until there's a new President...Chinese stock market suspended in mid-air...will we or won't we attack Iran...no immigration legislation...chaos in Gaza...and no word when the inevitable next season of The Sopranos will air.; 6/14/07, 1:39 PM
LutherM said...: Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose

Kingston Trio - from before you were born - The Merry Minuet

They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
They're starving in Spain (whistling)
There's hurricanes in Flo-ri-da (whistling)
And Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
AND I DON'T LIKE ANYBODY VERY MUCH!!

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off
AND WE WILL ALL BE BLOWN AWAY!!

They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't so to us
Will be done by our fellow *man; 6/14/07, 1:47 PM
Brian Doyle said...: So the fact that 23 percent of polled people don't like Congress means nothing but the fact that 29 percent of the same people don't like the president is a meaningful result.

You mean "is not a meaningful result" and yes, at a minimum it is much less meaningful, especially since much of the frustration with Congress is for their failure to stop Bush's war.

I mean I'm not saying Reid/Pelosi are wildly popular figures, but on balance those two numbers overwhelmingly favor the Dems in 08.

America is a center-left country, on the tail end of its flirtation with a self-styled "tough guy" who made a horrible mess of things.

You should be thankful for the headline "Republicans Abandon Bush." Frankly I think this gives them too much credit.; 6/14/07, 2:06 PM
Brian Doyle said...: As I was saying...

Of greater concern for Republicans generally, however, is the party's weak state heading into the 2008 election. By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.

Via WSJ; 6/14/07, 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: i know those on the right love to point at the democrats when "congress" gets low approval ratings (even though we all know they hold a bare majority), but until there is a breakout of each member's rating, it's actually an indictment of the entire body...and both parties should be ashamed.

as for bush being at 29%...you ain't nothin' yet.; 6/14/07, 2:17 PM
Brian Doyle said...: You mean "is not a meaningful result"

Oops. I messed up you meant what you wrote.; 6/14/07, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: sloan says: "The Democratic Congress is completely abysmal. If you compare it to the Republicsan takeover in 1994, this Congress has done nothing other than disgrace America abroad."

are you daft?

they been in power for about 6 month the republicans held sway for 12 years.

*and it's "CONGRESS" that gets the low approval rating...not the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.; 6/14/07, 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Sadly perfect, Luther.

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s Congress is blithely singing:

Scotch and soda, mud in your eye
Baby do I feel high
Oh me oh my do I feel high

the MSM crooning:

Dry martini, jigger of gin
Oh what a spell you’ve got me in
Oh my, do I feel high

and Bush be-bopping:

People won’t believe me, they’ll think that I’m just braggin’
That I could feel the way I do
And still be on the wagon.; 6/14/07, 2:20 PM
Tim said...: It is, of course, Bush's fault and his alone that the Democrat Congress is held is such low regard, especially relative to Bush's own approval ratings.

Evil B*stard.; 6/14/07, 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: tim,
bush taints america.; 6/14/07, 2:30 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: as for bush being at 29%...you ain't nothin' yet.

Well he hasn't dropped to that icon of America, Harry S. Truman at 22% but he does have 18 months to go.

Stay tuned.; 6/14/07, 2:38 PM
TMink said...: Well, the Republicans are abandoning the President, or he is abandoing them, take your pick.

I left the Republicans awhile ago. My loyalty is to conservative principles and VOTES. Not to the current President, certainly not to the Republicn party, and not to this Congress.

In terms of my respresentatives, Alexander is looking all wobbly and not inspiring any confidence. He may squeak by this vote on Immigration, but I am not sure even the English as Official Language bill will salvage his cred in my eyes. His junior, Senator Corker is voting, well, like a corker. I have never voted for my Congressman and he has not changed my mind one iota with his recent votes.

So I am hanging my hopes on Fred Thompson and a legit conservative running against Alexander.

Trey; 6/14/07, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: "America is a center-left country."

Truly hilarious. Unlike Sweden, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Mexico, all of which currently have center-right governments. Yeah, that United States of America, at the forefront of the socialist revolution.; 6/14/07, 3:17 PM
John said...: Oh yes, abysmal.

Why couldn't the Democrats come up with anyone who could beat him?; 6/14/07, 3:18 PM
hdhouse said...: Seven Machos said...
"This despite the fact that the Democratically-controlled House and Senate have even lower ratings."

So 7 Nachos fails the brains test yet once again.

Harken People:

Bush is nationally elected. His national poll numbers are indicative of his vote "if" he were to stand election.

The congress is locally elected. Get it? LOCALLY L O C A L L Y. National numbers mean nothing regarding local candidates. The refer to the the senate and congress in general. I can assume if you did it by party and confined it to those standing for re-election you would find it, district by district, state by state, to be fairly tight.

Idiots and morons like 7-nachos just don't think past the sing-song explain and spin...well they hate congress more than bush...

so stupid. so banal. get a brain.; 6/14/07, 3:35 PM
Revenant said...: America is a center-left country

America is a center-left country on issues like government benefits -- the median person wants more freebies from the government.

However, the median American also wants the following:

- capital punishment
- an end to racial preferences
- heavy restrictions on abortion
- tax cuts
- a ban on gay marriage
- a crackdown on illegal immigrants
- prayer and the teaching of Creationism in public schools
- official acknowledgment that America is a Christian nation

In summary, the median American is a socially conservative Christian who wants lots of government benefits, paid for by someone other than him. The only "center-left" part of that is the bit about wanting someone else to pay for your life on Easy Street.

And before you respond with the usual snivel that I'm just projecting my right-wing values onto an electorate that doesn't share them, let me point out that I'm personally AGAINST five of the eight things on that list.; 6/14/07, 3:57 PM
KCFleming said...: America has a mix of beliefs; some conservative, some center, some left, and inbetween. I'm not convinced the US is center-left/right or majority anything.

There seem to be mixing coalitions favoring one party or another, but no hint of a monolith as had existed for the Democrats for decades.

There has long been a statist/good-government faction, and a libertarian "leave me alone" faction, with the electoral majority veering between them as events require.

America is a cognitive dissonance country.; 6/14/07, 4:03 PM
MadisonMan said...: the median American is a socially conservative Christian who wants lots of government benefits, paid for by someone other than him.

Not a very Christian view at all.

What pogo said at 4:03; 6/14/07, 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: 29 > 23. 23 < 29. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.; 6/14/07, 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: But Rev, you don't understand. If you're not against all 8 you're a knuckle-dragging, reactionary, neo-con.; 6/14/07, 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I disagree that Americans are pining for the country to be a Christian nation. They just want it to not be a non-Christian nation.

There is a very big difference there, and it's not just one of degree.

I would add Judeo- in front of Christian, and Anglo-, not in terms of ethnicity but in terms of politics.; 6/14/07, 4:12 PM
hdhouse said...: 7 Nachos. of course you would put Judeo in front of Christian. You are an idiot. I would expect that.

Have you ever looked to the history of Judeo-Christian? And what did you find? ??? huh?

1. recent
2. invented to sooth the hurt of european holocaust and/or prejudice?
3. not part of the founding of this nation whatsoever?

It is a meaningless term. define if for me you moron? next post...tell me what judeo-christian means...half christian/half jew? what?

you are so insipid.; 6/14/07, 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Hd, I just know that if you attack my intelligence again, you'll really impress people.

Judeo-Christian encompasses the God of the Israelites since inception and the common law principles contained in several thousand years of Jewish law and under Christian law. Politically, Anglo is imperfect but the best word to encapsulate the idea that people have rights against the State and that the State is an entity of limited powers.; 6/14/07, 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh, oh, oh! Let me try this personal abuse thing that passes for discussion.

HD stands for Harry Dick, right?; 6/14/07, 4:26 PM
hdhouse said...: 7-Nachos. we need a warning bell every time you post something stupid. It would ring a lot but at least we wouldn't wander into the cow dung unwarned.

Etymological background
The first-known uses of the terms "Judæo-Christian" and "Judaeo-Christianity", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, are 1899 and 1910 respectively, but both were discussing the emergence of Christianity from Judaism. The term was first used with its current meaning in 1938, and was then used during World War II[3] to as an alternative to using the term 'Christian civilization' in light of Hitler's attacks on Jews and Judaism. Some argue that the term was invented in the United States in an attempt to create a non-denominational religious consensus or civil religion that, by embracing Judaism, avoided the appearance of anti-Semitism.[citation needed]

The term is now commonly used in popular culture as a shorthand for the predominant religious influences upon Western culture.

Use terms right or don't use them nitwit; 6/14/07, 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Hd -- Judeo-Christian means "of or pertaining to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity." Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Really, you shouldn't get so upset about this. I'm worried about you. I'm worried about your mental health.; 6/14/07, 4:50 PM
KCFleming said...: I have a theory, which is mine, that hdhouse is more than one person. The posts swing from sensible left all the way to angry vituperative far-left.

I blame the roommate.; 6/14/07, 4:58 PM
Cedarford said...: Revenant: However, the median American also wants the following:

- capital punishment
- an end to racial preferences
- heavy restrictions on abortion
- tax cuts
- a ban on gay marriage
- a crackdown on illegal immigrants
- prayer and the teaching of Creationism in public schools
- official acknowledgment that America is a Christian nation

1. Much truth to that, but I'd disagree on Creationism, which is near and dear only to a Fundie fringe that rejects evolution, and buys onto the talking snake and Ark stuff. And Muslim Fundies have even whackier ideas. Most parents don't want that religious claptrap ever making it into secular school classes - science or math.

2. Official English speaking nation, yes, official Christian nation? No, because lots and lots of Americans are agnostic, atheist, and even the Christians squabble on key points.
And the median American would be happy keeping the Muslims out and in limiting the clout and influence of the Jews.

3. The median American would not be for heavy restrictions on abortions. If it went to the States to decide by legislation as many of us hope it will be - everyone has a pretty good idea what States would vote into law. Be it New York or Alabama.

The median American also wants a Border Fence.
And supports Bush resigning as long as Cheney pledges to invade no future countries if he is Prez and he immediately picks a VP so "America's 1st Female" Pelosi, never ever gets in the White House if Cheney drops dead.; 6/14/07, 5:42 PM
dick said...: Amazing that the dem congress was able to go from approval of more than 50% to approval of 23% in less than 6 months - and Harry Reid is even lower. He is sitting at 19% now whereas he was at 53% right after he took over. It took the republicans 12 years to sink as far as the dems were able to in 6 months. They are trying for a new record at the rate they are going.; 6/14/07, 5:43 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: hdhouse said:
7-Nachos. we need a warning bell every time you post something stupid.

Actually I beat you to that idea. My computer will play Lost in Space's Robot WARNING!! WARNING!! Right before I scroll to one of your posts hdhouse.

I found it adds a lot of levity to your posts.; 6/14/07, 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: John said..."Oh yes, abysmal.

Why couldn't the Democrats come up with anyone who could beat him?"

uh, gore did beat him in 2000.; 6/14/07, 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...: rev says median america wants: "prayer and the teaching of Creationism in public schools"

but we already have the museum.; 6/14/07, 6:52 PM
Anonymous said...: mike,
do you believe in evolution or creationism?; 6/14/07, 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...: dick,
it's CONGRESS that has a 23% approval rating.

the dems have been a majority for about 6 months (the republicans for 12 years...duh)

and i don't remember ANY CONGRESS over the past decade having a 50% approval rating.

*and now we're concerned about harry reid's approval rating? (what's delay's and frist's these days?); 6/14/07, 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I am an atheist who considers evolution to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why?; 6/14/07, 7:44 PM
Anonymous said...: mike,
which of these do YOU agree with?

- capital punishment
- an end to racial preferences
- heavy restrictions on abortion
- tax cuts
- a ban on gay marriage
- a crackdown on illegal immigrants
- prayer and the teaching of Creationism in public schools
- official acknowledgment that America is a Christian nation; 6/14/07, 9:47 PM
Titus said...: Overall, I think the country is in a major funk in general.

People are not happy. I think I read a poll (maybe the same poll) where 19% of the country thought the country was on a wrong track.

I am no fan of the congress but it is more the function of congress rather than specific personalities.
Government in general can be depressing. Why anyone would want to run for public office is beyond me. Not that there hasn't been great leaders in government it just seems like such a staid bureacratic bore.

Also, I think the
country has Bush fatigue and are ready to move on to someone new with new ideas, a new vision and a new direction. Also, someone without a southern/soutwestern twang would be helpful. Sorry, the accent drives me crazy.; 6/14/07, 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: boston,
actually it's more like 67% of the country who believes we're on the wrong track.

wsj poll 6/8/07; 6/14/07, 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: - an end to racial preferences
- tax cuts

You're not, Lucky. Lucky's M.O. is to stick words in people's mouths and then to call them names.

What have you done with Lucky? (Whatever it was, well done).; 6/14/07, 10:52 PM
Revenant said...: it's CONGRESS that has a 23% approval rating. the dems have been a majority for about 6 months (the republicans for 12 years...duh)

Yes, and they've been *dropping* for those six months. Congress enjoyed a brief surge in popularity when the Democrats took over, but it didn't last. What's worse (for you, anyway) is that they've lost even more popularity than they gained during the takeover, meaning that Congress is now even less popular than it was when the Republicans lost it. You can't put a positive spin on that.

and i don't remember ANY CONGRESS over the past decade having a 50% approval rating.

Add that to the laundry list of political facts you're blissfully unaware of, then. Congress was regularly over 50% during 2002 and 2003, and periodically rose above 50% during the late 90s. So yes, it does happen, although Congressional approval ratings typically hover in the 30s and 40s.

and now we're concerned about harry reid's approval rating? (what's delay's and frist's these days?)

Their approval ratings aren't being tracked anymore that I'm aware of -- but Frist bottomed out in the low 20s just prior to the 2006 elections. Amusingly enough, Reid's approval rating was the same then as it is now -- 19%.; 6/14/07, 11:01 PM
dhagood said...: Why couldn't the Democrats come up with anyone who could beat him?"

uh, gore did beat him in 2000.

only in your fevered dreams. ask the new york times.; 6/14/07, 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...: rev,
exactly why are you so concerned with congress's approval rating, especially considering the brief period of time since the turnover? no new congress, with a majority of ONE could possibly accomplish much of anything with the opposing party holding the white house. i doubt if we'll see much of anything until after november 2008.

and why do you give a flying fuck about reid?; 6/14/07, 11:09 PM
Anonymous said...: lewsar,

popular vote = gore.

as for florida...well, that's a whole different story.; 6/14/07, 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: lewsar,
i forgot to ask:

do YOU approve of the job bush has done?; 6/14/07, 11:13 PM
TMink said...: Cedarford wrote: "Much truth to that, but I'd disagree on Creationism, which is near and dear only to a Fundie fringe that rejects evolution, and buys onto the talking snake and Ark stuff."

I disagree a bit. Fundamentalists believe that God created the world in 6 24 hours periods, lots of us Christians believe that God created the universe. Fundies are literalists on every word of the Bible. Evangelicals like me are not absolute literalists, but our beliefs overlap considerably with the Fundies.

Trey; 6/14/07, 11:14 PM
Anonymous said...: tmink,
if god created the universe...why didn't god ever mention the dinosaurs?; 6/14/07, 11:24 PM
Revenant said...: exactly why are you so concerned with congress's approval rating

This, from a man who constantly obsesses over the approval ratings of a man who can't run for office again? Anyway, I'm not "concerned" over Congress' rotten approval ratings. Heck, I'd be concerned for the intelligence of American voters if they were anything BUT rotten at this point.

especially considering the brief period of time since the turnover?

Six months is plenty of time, especially if you already have plans in mind prior to taking office -- which, of course, the Democrats claimed they did. In any case, voters want results, not excuses.

no new congress, with a majority of ONE could possibly accomplish much of anything with the opposing party holding the white house.

Voters aren't going to fall for that nonsense, simply because Congress hasn't even *tried* to tackle any of the big domestic issues it said were so important. You can't play the "George Bush wouldn't let us do it" card when you haven't even sent him a bill to sign. Where's the health care bill? The tax hike? The DADT repeal?

i doubt if we'll see much of anything until after november 2008.

The polls show Hillary losing to any of the likely Republican candidates. Good luck explaining to voters that they have to wait until 2012.; 6/15/07, 1:32 AM
Revenant said...: if god created the universe...why didn't god ever mention the dinosaurs?

You really are hopelessly stupid, aren't you? TMink is referring to the Christian world majority view that the story in Genesis is not accurate -- that while God created the universe, he didn't directly create the lifeforms within it (except, possibly, for humans).

So the reason God "didn't mention the dinosaurs" is that the Genesis account is merely a metaphor for the creation of the universe, not a literal account.; 6/15/07, 1:40 AM
hdhouse said...: oh this is rich...the right wing on here caught in the literal creation debate. you guys are a laugh riot and not an ounce of theology amoung you.

your rendition of God is God the Trickster? or God the Partial Creator? or God hits the lightswitch?

I'm surprised that when you get caught in a contradiction as is oft the case, you don't start the next sentence with "Well Clinton.....".

Rev...you are so lame. Such weak game. This the best cheese you got little man?; 6/15/07, 2:33 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: as for florida...well, that's a whole different story.

Yep, lost because a bunch of people who couldn't figure out a ballot that 3rd graders could understand lost it for him. As I said before, voting is a right, intelligence isn't.

Oh, one other thing. If Gore could have carried his own state this conversation would be moot.

If you can't even carry the state you and your daddy were the Senator of then that says a lot.; 6/15/07, 5:17 AM
John said...: Actually when I wrote that comment I was thinking about 2004 (when everyone knew what Bush was all about) than 2000.

Oh, one other thing. If Gore could have carried his own state this conversation would be moot.

I thought he did carry the District of Columbia.; 6/15/07, 6:22 AM
Titus said...: Hoosier Daddy says, "Oh, one other thing. If Gore could have carried his own state this conversation would be moot."

You can guarantee that Mitt Romney will not carry Mass even he gets the republican nomination but then again I don't recall Gore running around the country going off on his home state.

There is something incredibly slimey for a politician like Romney to run around blasting his own state and the people who voted for him, as well as the state that supported his company and contributed to his wealth.

But then again, Romney is about as slimey as you can get.; 6/15/07, 7:15 AM
Titus said...: Sorry I was incorrect in my last comments regarding "wrong direction" of the country". Only 19% of the country believes we are in the right track-that is pretty bad.; 6/15/07, 7:17 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You can guarantee that Mitt Romney will not carry Mass even he gets the republican nomination but then again I don't recall Gore running around the country going off on his home state.

Probably not. Then again I'm not a Romney fan so I don't really care.

I still hold that a candidate, regardless of party, who can't carry a state he was a representative of in his presidential bid, doesn't deserve to win.; 6/15/07, 7:36 AM
Kirby Olson said...: Many Christians don't care about evolution. Luther for instance said that where science is accurate theology had to back down and accept it.

Theology is about salvation.

Science is about understanding the world.

So almost all Lutherans accept evolution as a scientific fact.

Luther separated the different functions. He said if you needed something like your car fixed -- then you go to a competent mechanic and whether or not they were a practicing Lutheran didn't matter.

He said he'd rather have a competent Muslim as head of government rather than a raving Christian nut like the Pope of his time.

At any rate, when I see Democrats raving (Carville enjoys doing this) that Christians don't believe there were ever dinosaurs, etc., I don't know who he's talking about. How many Christians believe in Creationism? It must be some squirrelly minority locked away in some valley somewhere where electricity has never reached.

I know a lot of Christians but I don't know any that don't believe in evolution.; 6/15/07, 8:06 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: What I see having happened with Congress is that a lot of people were fed up with the level of corruption with the Republicans, and so gave control to the Democrats who kept talking about the "culture of corruption".

But it turns out that the Democrats are every bit as corrupt and venal as the Republicans, if not more so. We have Obey trying to move earmarks to conference committee to avoid an up or down vote on them. We have Pelosi first getting a bigger jet, tried to put ethically compromised Reps. in key positions (including one of the only federal judges ever removed through impeachment), her husband making money on her legislation, and most recently, that taxpayers should start paying for children of legislators to travel overseas with their parents. And, there was Jefferson with his freezer full of cash.

On the Senate side, we have Reid making millions for himself and his four sons being dwarfed by the more than billion dollars in contracts won by her husband's company under her watch.

Of course, the popularity of Congress is sinking like a rock. The American people threw the bums out, just to find a worse bunch of bums in charge after that.; 6/15/07, 8:26 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I should read what I write more carefully. The billion dollars in contracts were to Sen. Feinstein's husband's company.; 6/15/07, 8:27 AM
Roger J. said...: "But it turns out that the Democrats are every bit as corrupt and venal as the Republicans, if not more so" Bruce: you arent really surprised are you? What Mark Twain said" "Congress is America's only true criminal class."; 6/15/07, 8:29 AM
TMink said...: Lucky old son asked me why God did not mention the dinosaur.

I will answer your question as if it is asked in earnest! While I am far from certain that it was asked this way, that seems the best way to proceed.

The short answer is I do not know! God is God, and I am not. My father (a WWII vet and ob/gyn) earnestly believed that God put the dinosaur BONES under the earth to fool people. No joke! This does not hold well with my theology, but then again, God is God, and my father is not.

I do believe in the literal creation of the universe, just not in 6 24 hour periods. It is in scripture that way, and I have learned to trust scripture through my experiences, and it also squares nicely with entropy.

According to entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, a closed system will go from a state of order to disorder. I have trouble reconciling this with macro evoloution. But I digress.

I think that scripture does not mention the dinosaur because they are not that important to our spiritual and relational lives.

Dinosaurs existed, but I fail to see the tension between their existance and my experience of a living God who created the universe. Perhaps you would like to expand the question after you get through making fun of me a bit.
(NTTIAWWT.)

Trey; 6/15/07, 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps you would like to expand the question after you get through making fun of me a bit.

Trey, Luckys only interest in asking the question is to use your answer to hurl insults at you. You know that, as does everybody here. Don't waste your time with him.; 6/15/07, 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: i asked a straight forward question: if god created the univers and the bible is the word of god...why no mention of the dinosaurs?

seems like they would have made quite an impression.

p.s. to mike - blow me.; 6/15/07, 10:39 AM
Roger J. said...: "if god created the univers and the bible is the word of god...why no mention of the dinosaurs?

ummmmm--same reason he didnt mention the 1969 mets? (which was probably his greatest miracle but I will defer to Doyle on that one); 6/15/07, 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: p.s. to mike - blow me.

But I don't even like you.; 6/15/07, 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Leftist wackjobs: "If you believe in God, you are required to interpret the creation story completely literally and, as a matter of fact, exactly as we on the left literally interpret the Bible, in order that we leftist wackos may scorn you and feel better about ourselves."; 6/15/07, 11:48 AM
TMink said...: Ya know, it is OK if LOS makes fun of me, Lord knows I deserve it, and I can take it, and sometimes during that type of exchange I learn something, and sometimes I even get to be friends with the person who teases me a bit. So it is OK if he teases me or even insults me, but, I take him at his word that it was a sincere question.

And LOS, dinosaurs are interesting and cool to me too. I do not know why they were not part of the creation story when the big bang can be extrapolated from it if you take both seriously as I do.

I think that the main purpose of the Bible as I read it, it to tell me who I am, who God is, and how we can get along, and how that will help me get along better with my wife, my children, my friends, my neighbors, and folks on here.

Sadly, I do not always act in a way that accomplishes that, but when I live out the things I know and have been taught, it goes better for all concerned.

And I guess that dinosaurs do not contribute to that purpose. But I am WAY out on a limb here, and I am certainly no theologian or Biblical scholar.

My spirituality is more experience based and practical. So sorry I could not help more Lucky Old Son, and sorry that I got a bit defensive about your question.

Trey; 6/15/07, 12:02 PM
TMink said...: Damn funny comment about the 69 mets by the way. It made me laugh. Out loud. I swear!

Trey; 6/15/07, 12:03 PM
Roger J. said...: T Mink--OK, I admit that was a line from the movie Oh God--George Burns, playing god, says that was his latest miracle. (plagiarizing jokes and all that); 6/15/07, 1:07 PM
TMink said...: Well, when I steal, I try to steal from the best too! Still outstanding.

Trey; 6/15/07, 2:21 PM
Revenant said...: your rendition of God is God the Trickster? or God the Partial Creator? or God hits the lightswitch? I'm surprised that when you get caught in a contradiction as is oft the case, you don't start the next sentence with "Well Clinton.....". Rev...you are so lame. Such weak game. This the best cheese you got little man?

I'm sure that rant made sense to you, but I haven't got the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.; 6/15/07, 2:53 PM
Revenant said...: How many Christians believe in Creationism?

The majority of the Christians in the United States believe that humans were directly created by God in their present form. Slightly less than half subscribe to the belief that the world is less than 10,000 years old. This series of polls has some useful information about what Americans as a whole believe in, although of course that includes nonbelievers too.

I know a lot of Christians but I don't know any that don't believe in evolution.

It depends on what circles you travel in, I guess. I don't know anybody who watches "Survivor". :); 6/15/07, 3:09 PM
Fen said...: Kirby Olson: Many Christians don't care about evolution

I didn't care when I was a Christian. Its old testament, and I never took it literally.

As for the stupid dinosaur question: religion is mankind's interpretation of God, and we are imperfect creatures. I don't think any religion can adequately explain Him or any creation - its beyond our comprehension, like trying to imagine a new color [stop and try that].

Besides, if there is such a thing as an immortal soul, it would be folly to squander it on account of a few imperfect [ignorant, corrupt, etc] men.; 6/16/07, 1:10 AM