Althouse: "I am far, far from a perfect human being, but I am motivated by a vision which exists in all of the great religions — in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, Buddhism and other religions..."

September 14, 2015

"I am far, far from a perfect human being, but I am motivated by a vision which exists in all of the great religions — in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, Buddhism and other religions..."

"... and which is so beautifully and clearly stated in Matthew 7:12. And it states: ‘So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.’ That is the golden rule. Do to others what you would have them do to you. It is not very complicated.... I would also say that as a nation, the truth is, that a nation which in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back on racist principles, that’s a fact. We have come a long way as a nation...."

Said Bernie Sanders, speaking to Christian Evangelicals at Liberty University.

135 comments:

traditionalguy said...: If I got Bernie right we should have the Fedearl Government collectivize private property as a religious act because we all want to get loot from God.

But since Bernie proclaims that he is now a Follower of Jesus, I should give him the benefit of the doubt. I like Messianic Jews.; 9/14/15, 8:15 PM
Meade said...: "I like Messianic Jews."

On Facebook?; 9/14/15, 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't tax capital gains at 70% in order to fund abortions for teenagers.; 9/14/15, 8:18 PM
Renee said...: How well would an Evangelical at a progressive school?; 9/14/15, 8:21 PM
Tom said...: If I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me, we'd live in a libertarian paradise. Not sure this is what he means.; 9/14/15, 8:23 PM
chickelit said...: I think Sanders could get a significant number of evangelic votes if he'd just jettison the knee-jerk pro-abortion stance. That ain't about to happen though.; 9/14/15, 8:25 PM
harrogate said...: It's pretty amazing he went there. The only member of either party running for the nomination so willing to go an environment so aligned against him, and make his case anyway, and seek common ground. I doubt it will do him any good electorally but I respect it .; 9/14/15, 8:25 PM
sean said...: Further to what Renee said, I'm sure that the students were more courteous to Sanders than the students at Bennington would be to Jerry Falwell.

Let's be honest, the students at Liberty were more courteous than the faculty at Bennington--or Wisconsin, for that matter--would be to Jerry Falwell.; 9/14/15, 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: The students at Liberty probably liked him already. They are kids, after all.; 9/14/15, 8:31 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Such data led Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, to quote a comment made by the late hasidic troubadour Shlomo Carlebach after a lifetime of visiting American campuses: “I ask students what they are. If someone gets up and says, I’m a Catholic, I know that’s a Catholic. If someone says, I’m a Protestant, I know that’s a Protestant. If someone gets up and says, I’m just a human being, I know that’s a Jew.”

That's the pattern that Bernie Sanders followed. I actually think that if he had spoke to the students about how his Jewish faith informed his politics it might have been better received. Instead, he went all comparative religion-ey on them, and I can tell you from personal experience that leaves folks such as inhabit the auditorium at Liberty University cold. Get up there & witness!, if not for Jesus, then for Moses & the prophets, goshtarnit! (Excuse my French). They want to hear how your faith has changed your life, be ye Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever.

My guess, is that Bernie's Judaism is pretty weak tea, too, so he went all "meta" on them.; 9/14/15, 8:37 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Trump will no doubt get similar respectful treatment when he speaks at La Raza........

Go Bernie!; 9/14/15, 8:38 PM
SGT Ted said...: Hey wait a minute I thought we were supposed to have separation of church and state and avoid the bible or other religions from influencing our laws.; 9/14/15, 8:39 PM
Scott said...: Shallow as fuck.; 9/14/15, 8:41 PM
chickelit said...: harrogate said...
It's pretty amazing he went there. The only member of either party running for the nomination so willing to go an environment so aligned against him, and make his case anyway, and seek common ground. I doubt it will do him any good electorally but I respect it .

I don't recall you praising Sarah Palin for going to Madison, Wisconsin in April 2011 to stage a Tea Party rally in a hostile environment. That was truly going into the belly of the beast. She wasn't even running for anything then except in people's heads. Althouse covered it in case you missed it.; 9/14/15, 8:41 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: @SGT Ted

Yeah! What the hell is that guy doing talking about religion. Freaking Jesus freak!; 9/14/15, 8:44 PM
Bob R said...: @Paul Zrimsek - Have you ever been to Liberty?; 9/14/15, 8:47 PM
Bob R said...: @harrogate - Is Rand Paul at Howard slipping your mind?; 9/14/15, 8:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: Yes Meade, on the Holy Spirit's own Heavenly Facebook. And He likes Messianic Jews first and then also to the Messianic Gentiles.

But what I want to hear more about is whether Bernie will defend Israel instead of the forces of Haman/Obama and The Persians.; 9/14/15, 8:51 PM
Bob R said...: But props to both Bernie and Liberty. The quick Q&A on abortion was about as good a presentation of the best arguments of both sides that you could make in about a minute.; 9/14/15, 8:52 PM
Lindsey said...: I don't believe the Golden Rule exists in Islam. I would like some evidence that is the case.; 9/14/15, 8:53 PM
averagejoe said...: So America was created on racist principles, huh? Well, the democrat party fond a winning platform to run on in 2008 and 2012, so no surprise that they're going to keep riding that hobby horse to victory.; 9/14/15, 8:55 PM
clint said...: That's definitely in Buddhism and Christianity. I can believe it's in Judaism, indirectly. Can someone point me to where it's found in the Koran?; 9/14/15, 8:56 PM
Real American said...: I want to keep at least 90% of the money I EARN. That's how I will treat you. Treat me the same. And I'm not gonna treat other people like ATMs just because they earn more than me.

Somehow, I suspect Bernie's version of the golden rule is to take money from those who earned and give it to those that did not.; 9/14/15, 9:01 PM
sunsong said...: America founded on racist prinicles - 4 1/2 minutes; 9/14/15, 9:03 PM
harrogate said...: Rand Paul at Howard is an excellent example . It had indeed slipped my mind.

Actually, I have been thinking for a while that a barnstorming debate tour by Bernie and Rand would have been an awesome move.

As for Palin, it was in Madison yes, but it was a Tea Party rally too. Not exactly shocking that there are Tea Partiers in Madison. There are lots of liberals in Kansas, as well.; 9/14/15, 9:05 PM
jr565 said...: Do unto other as they would do to you? Ok, I wasn't aborted, so I will not abort others.; 9/14/15, 9:05 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: Dear Bernie,

I would be grateful if you would be willing to carefully enumerate the ways in which you are far, far from perfect. That would help us understanding more clearly what you consider perfection to be and what you consider to be a flaw. That would help us in deciding if you are worth a vote.

Thanks,

Barry; 9/14/15, 9:17 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Bernie: " America was founded on racist principles"

Me: The Democrat party was founded on racist principles, fought to preserve slavery, established Jim Crow laws after losing the Civil War, formed the KKK to enforce Jim Crow laws, and filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Et tu, Bernie?; 9/14/15, 9:21 PM
chickelit said...: The problem with Sanders' racism logic is that it is so one-sided. For example, he cannot understand how a white man can go into a church and murder churchgoers. But how can he fail to mention a black man who murders two on TV for self-admitedly racist reasons?

We have seen what a Sander Presidency would look like regarding race: he will mount the podium and the BLM people will take over the microphone and the talking points. Old man Sanders will just fold and go home. The administration will be Erich Holder on steroids.

Trump is still the best bet for Dems looking to crossover for lack of a decent candidate.; 9/14/15, 9:32 PM
traditionalguy said...: Bernie may soon face Mark Cuban as a Trump 2.0 in the Dem race. Mark is a super smart billionaire too...and he is Jewish.; 9/14/15, 9:34 PM
Sebastian said...: "That is the golden rule. Do to others what you would have them do to you."

I forget, where does the Koran say that?; 9/14/15, 9:54 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: It is too much to hope for, I suppose, that in front of a religious audience, a wannabe leader would refrain from telling the audience that they have failed to live up to the speaker's values, or other people, not present, have failed to live up to the speakers values. This would be better:
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Has any Republican candidate -- members of the party that is routinely accused of being thrall to fundamentalist Christians -- accused the American people of behaving immorally?; 9/14/15, 9:59 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: George Will: Bernie Sanders is NO outsider. He has been a politician for decades.; 9/14/15, 10:04 PM
Mark said...: "Founded on racist principles."

Why do we let people get away with that? Yes, racism was built right into the Constitution, because it was a political document, and as such the politics of the time crept in to the implementation details. But to my recollection, nowhere in the founding documents does it say we wanted to become a nation because we hate folks who ain't white. Racism got rolled in despite our founding ideals, not because of them.

Bastard starts out saying something meaningful then pisses it away.; 9/14/15, 10:05 PM
Bob Ellison said...: run, bernie, run; 9/14/15, 10:07 PM
Gahrie said...: Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence included a section condemning the king for allowing the institution of slavery in the colonies. The slave colonies forced him to take them out. He also changed Locke's Life, Liberty and Property to Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, to avoid giving any argument to slave holders that they had a right to slaves as property. (Not that Taney noticed)

The two sections of the Constitution dealing with slavery intentionally do not use the word slave, so that no one would be able to use them later to justify slavery.

This nation was formed despite slavery and racism, not because of them.; 9/14/15, 10:15 PM
walter said...: His podium was safe.; 9/14/15, 10:18 PM
Fernandinande said...: Lindsey said...
I don't believe the Golden Rule exists in Islam.

"Do unto others before they do unto you."; 9/14/15, 10:25 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Mark wrote:
"Yes, racism was built right into the Constitution"
Where? Which paragraph, which article, which amendment?; 9/14/15, 10:33 PM
Michael K said...: "racism was built right into the Constitution"

Nope. Gahrie has it right. Too bad so many young people have no understanding of this. History is something that I was taught in school and no longer is.; 9/14/15, 10:38 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Look, Mark, the reason that I am trying to pin you down on where, exactly, the constitution endorses racism is because it is a project of the Left to undermine the constitution. They don't like its provisions against taking property. They don't like the right to bear arms. They don't like freedom of speech. They especially don't like freedom of religion. They want to discredit the constitution, to make people think that it is a barrier to the kind of country we want to live in. Sanders, by saying that the country was founded on racist principles, was just doing his part in trying to discredit a constitution that protects individuals from the state and allows them to stand up to the wannabe tyrants in DC.; 9/14/15, 10:40 PM
Known Unknown said...: Jefferson was a flawed human being. A hypocrite, yes. But still one of the greats without whom this nation would not exist today.; 9/14/15, 10:42 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Slave Codes were making the English and French Aristocrats mega wealthy in the Caribbean sugar Islands..They openly made wealth by working Africans to death as fast as possible and replacing the dead with new captured men...that was the rub that their death camps required redefining black men as animals and not as human men. That in turn was defended as one drop of African blood rule taking away the many mixed race men's human rights including citizenship ruled the head up its ass SCOTUS in an earlier iteration of legal fiction.

The Tidewater Virginia culture and its leaders in good standing in the Anglican Church Had imported those slave codes to the coastal south, rice plantations but that was not until after the Jefferson and Washington and Paine generation of 1776 had founded the Confederation. Later a compromise Constitution shoved the big issue under the rug . But after four score and ten years Gettysburg fixed it.; 9/14/15, 10:51 PM
sunsong said...: Article 1:

"...Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct..."; 9/14/15, 10:53 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: You can't find the racism in article 1, Sunsong? A lot of people assume that there is something racist in there, but when they look they can't find it . . .; 9/14/15, 11:04 PM
gadfly said...: Appropriately, Bernie Sanders, a dedicated follower of Karl Marx, quoted from the Bible which conforms to Marx's philosophy that "Religion is the opium of the masses" and that "Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand."

Bernie would likely be more comfortable with the Code of the West than the Golden Rule. As Roger Miller sang in the "Ballad of Waterhole #3",

The Code of the West
You must do unto others
Do unto others before they do it unto you; 9/14/15, 11:17 PM
Carnifex said...: There is a golden rule in the koran. It has to do with jizzya, paying tribute to the pedophiles and goat fuckers if you're a different religion. Personally, they can go fuck themselves.

Oh! So can the old socialist fuck.
(and here i thought i had no more fucks to give. apparently i got plenty); 9/14/15, 11:23 PM
eddie willers said...: The Pilgrims left England to get away from all those black people.

I think Howard Zinn had it in a book somewhere.; 9/14/15, 11:36 PM
James Pawlak said...: Islam is based on commanded perpetual war and its supporting murder, rape, genocide, banditry, lying and treaty breaking, abuse of females, Etc.---As supporter by B. H. Obama.; 9/14/15, 11:56 PM
Gahrie said...: Well...I do teach high school U.S. History and Government.......; 9/14/15, 11:57 PM
William said...: I have read that there are many passages in the Koran that detail the proper treatment of slaves. On the up side, devout Moslems treated their slaves better than those in Christian lands. Or so it was said by those who observed slaves in both realms in the nineteenth century. On the down side, all those verses detailing the proper way to treat slaves does give the Prophet's tacit endorsement to the institution of slavery. Muslims have no religious objections to slavery and, indeed, have fought wars to maintain their right to own slaves. If ISIS is successful perhaps this hallowed institution can be reinstated among men. It is already quite prevalent in Mauretania......When good ole Bernie goes all bomfog, he might want to point out that some religions have a better record than others in the abolition of slavery. The Quakers and the Methodists were in the vanguard. Catholics and Jews not so much. Muslims not at all.; 9/15/15, 12:09 AM
Michael K said...: " three fifths of all other Persons."

Sunsong, maybe you had better ask Gahrie what that means. The Constitution was a compromise document that included many other compromises, such as the big state/small state compromise that gave us the Senate and House. You really need a Civics lesson.; 9/15/15, 12:10 AM
Gahrie said...: For the ignorant and brainwashed:

The Three-Fifths compromise dealt with how slaves would be counted for purposes of representation, and taxation. The North wanted slaves to count for taxation, and not for representation, and the south wanted the reverse. If slaves had counted as a whole person for purposes of representation, it would have increased the power of the slave states. Counting slaves as 3/5 weakened slavery. (notice the word slave was never used); 9/15/15, 12:20 AM
sunsong said...: You really need a Civics lesson.

Typical far right authoritarianism, claiming to be the definer of all terms.[ Worked out well for you with marriage, didn't it.] The "compromise" allowed for southern slavery which is not just racism, but tyranny.

adding to the whole Number of free Persons; 9/15/15, 12:22 AM
Leigh said...: "Racist principles"?!?!

Until Bernie will own up to, and admit the reasons we have modern-day racial segregation: racist housing policies knowingly and deliberately advanced by the Democrats -- policies Republicans fiercely opposed -- he has no room to talk about anything "founded on racist principles."

That he was speaking to polite, conservative students willing to hear him with an open mind, students who never protested his invitation to address them, leaves me almost speechless.

Irony is one thing. But hypocrisy such as this makes me sick.

Retire and write a book, Bernie. Call it "The Audacity of Trope."

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/race-housing-education; 9/15/15, 12:28 AM
kcom said...: In case you didn't notice, America was founded on non-racist PRINCIPLES. Yes, the founders fell short of those principles, but that doesn't change the fact that is what the country was founded on. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't. The whole civil rights movement was based on that fact. It was an implicit assumption in the movement. "All men are created equal." Yadda, yadda.; 9/15/15, 1:22 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: William wrote:
"On the down side, all those verses detailing the proper way to treat slaves does give the Prophet's tacit endorsement to the institution of slavery."
I don't the endorsement was tacit, William.; 9/15/15, 1:26 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: If you find yourself in a crowd listening to someone lecture you about morality and what God wants you to do, you are either at Baptist church services or a democrat political rally.; 9/15/15, 1:33 AM
Gahrie said...: The "compromise" allowed for southern slavery which is not just racism, but tyranny.

True. However....

Slavery was the status quo. The new constitution did not strengthen slavery, and enshrined the principles that eventually led to its abolition. The choice was between an imperfect union, or no union at all. Slavery was still common in the world, and really only seen as evil in Protestant Europe. Slavery in the United States was not unique, or even particularly evil compared to slavery practiced elsewhere.; 9/15/15, 1:34 AM
Gahrie said...: There was no possible outcome in 1789 that would have led to the immediate abolition of slavery in the United States.; 9/15/15, 1:35 AM
kcom said...: "allowed for"

Hardly the definition of a principle. Especially if it didn't apply to the whole country.; 9/15/15, 1:39 AM
Carl Pham said...: Ah? So Bern, would you like someone pointing a gun at your head and demanding x% of your property, to devote to some purpose of his own, notwithstanding your disagreement with either the wisdom of the purpose, or the method of its execution? (Of course if you didn't disagree, with either, the power of the state -- the gun -- isn't necessary, and we are talking about private institutions that function by voluntary support.)

So what does the Golden Rule say about all your socialist nostrums, you lying cynical turd? Surely the most basic human wish is to be free to do as you like, particularly with the fruits of your own labor, the result of spending the irreplaceable hours of your life sweating, if you are not harming someone else. Doesn't the Golden Rule prohibit interfering sods like yourself in government from using force to compel people to support your ideas for social betterment when they think they're 100% stupid or futile?

But of course not. The Golden Rule has...exceptions, doesn't it? When for example one party is a philosopher-king attempting to better the welfare of the stupid masses. Naturally in that case the philosopher-king can't be expected to do unto a stupid peasant only what he would willingly allow the stupid peasant to do unto him.

It will be a fine day when forked-tongue serpents like this, attempting to pervert one of the most ancient and wise prescriptions for ethical behaviour into an argument for totalitarian enslavement of every living soul to an egregiously vacuous and cynical pyramid-building end, are deported to Antarctic islets with a bag of seeds and an axe. I won't say they should have their tongues cut out first, but on the other hand I wouldn't object to that.; 9/15/15, 2:23 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I have little respect for someone who condemns racism, but then caucuses with the party of slavery, the Confederacy, Jim Crow, KKK, black lynchings, resegregation of the federal govt, and most recently dropping the case against the NBP, BLM, etc.; 9/15/15, 3:36 AM
rcommal said...: Difficult stuff is always difficult.

Is not that the very definition of difficult?; 9/15/15, 3:50 AM
Chris N said...: Perhaps much like deodorant, there's only room for so many faiths on State-run shelves.; 9/15/15, 4:01 AM
Chris N said...: Don't miss this Friday's interfaith community dialogue and food pellet party on floor 3A commons!

***Prenatal screening, addict counseling, and job training available on the latest computer!; 9/15/15, 4:08 AM
Mark said...: "A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: "As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]"

Sounds like the Golden Rule to me.; 9/15/15, 4:19 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger sunsong said...
You really need a Civics lesson.

Typical far right authoritarianism, claiming to be the definer of all terms.[ Worked out well for you with marriage, didn't it.] The "compromise" allowed for southern slavery which is not just racism, but tyranny.

adding to the whole Number of free Persons

You're still not gwtting it. The three fifths law gave them standing. without it they would cease to exist at all. Insisting on including them, unwittingly or not, opened the door to eventual abolition. The civil war intervened and put paid to slavery.
It is my contention that the racism we see today is a direct result of Johnsons great society.; 9/15/15, 6:02 AM
Robert Cook said...: "It is my contention that the racism we see today is a direct result of Johnsons great society."

Boy Howdy! Finally someone's speaking truth to power! We've been propagandized to forget the Elysium of racial harmony and equality that existed prior to LBJ's dastardly project to smash asunder that paradise on earth!; 9/15/15, 6:40 AM
Robert Cook said...: "If I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me, we'd live in a libertarian paradise."

Hardly. A libertarian paradise would be one where everyone's attitude would be, "I'm taking care of my shit, you take care of your own shit. Don't bother me, and get off my lawn!"; 9/15/15, 6:43 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I don't believe the Golden Rule exists in Islam. I would like some evidence that is the case."

"That's definitely in Buddhism and Christianity. I can believe it's in Judaism, indirectly. Can someone point me to where it's found in the Koran?"

What have you guys got against Islam?

All it takes is a little looking, guys.; 9/15/15, 6:51 AM
Rusty said...: bert Cook said...
"If I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me, we'd live in a libertarian paradise."

Hardly. A libertarian paradise would be one where everyone's attitude would be, "I'm taking care of my shit, you take care of your own shit. Don't bother me, and get off my lawn!"

No it wouldn't.; 9/15/15, 7:04 AM
Rusty said...: Delete
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"It is my contention that the racism we see today is a direct result of Johnsons great society."

Boy Howdy! Finally someone's speaking truth to power! We've been propagandized to forget the Elysium of racial harmony and equality that existed prior to LBJ's dastardly project to smash asunder that paradise on earth!

"insufferable cunt" isn't something you should be going around promoting.
Just sayin'; 9/15/15, 7:05 AM
Robert Cook said...: "'As Roger Miller sang in the "Ballad of Waterhole #3',

"The Code of the West
You must do unto others
Do unto others before they do it unto you."

I saw that movie...it starred James Coburn. I always remember the one line that must have seemed quite the quip at the time, but seems rather grotesque now: Someone accuses Coburn's character of rape, and he dismisses it as "Assault with a friendly weapon."

(I may have the circumstances which prompted Coburn's line muddled, as I saw it when I was 11 or 12, and never since then, but it was generally along those lines.); 9/15/15, 7:16 AM
Robert Cook said...: "On the up side, devout Moslems treated their slaves better than those in Christian lands. Or so it was said by those who observed slaves in both realms in the nineteenth century. On the down side, all those verses detailing the proper way to treat slaves does give the Prophet's tacit endorsement to the institution of slavery. Muslims have no religious objections to slavery...."

Do you imagine Big Book of the Judeo-Christian religion--the Bible--provides a condemnation of slavery, or that it did not also offer suggestions for the "proper" treatment of slaves?; 9/15/15, 7:20 AM
Rick said...: I find it incredibly annoying when areligious people try to justify their politics with the bible as if they know it better than the religious do. They come off as having read three paragraphs at a website of religion haters and convinced themselves they're now experts.

Atheistsplaining.; 9/15/15, 7:41 AM
dbp said...: "Do to others what you would have them do to you."

I think most people are okay with this but what does it have to do with government? Does Bernie think the federal government is a person? And that person needs a head that will be generous with the unfortunate?

The government is not a person with its own money. It takes money from actual people for purposes which are necessary and too large for individuals to take care of by themselves--The country needs military defense and it is not something that can be done on an individual level.

When the government pretends like it is a rich, generous guy--it is really just stealing from taxpayers. In the process, it denies individuals the opportunity to help their neighbor by already subsidizing their neighbor. As a final poke in the eye, it trains the neighbor to think the largess is an entitlement rather than something for which they should be grateful.

It is almost like a complete perversion of the original biblical lesson.; 9/15/15, 7:46 AM
Rick said...: Tangentially related, the WSJ is reporting Bernie's new spending plans total 1.8 trillion / year. This is about 11% of GDP (17 trillion) and about a 30% increase in total government spending (6 trillion) and over 50% of federal spending (3.5 trillion).; 9/15/15, 7:54 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I find it incredibly annoying when areligious people try to justify their politics with the bible as if they know it better than the religious do."

What makes you think the religious know the Bible? Many do, certainly, buy many don't. And many areligious people do know the Bible, (and many don't).; 9/15/15, 8:19 AM
Unknown said...: I think what I liked best was the reception the Socialist who was at odds with the vast majority of students at a Christian school on hot button topics received.

Then we compare that to what a right wing speaker receives at left wing schools; 9/15/15, 8:22 AM
Rick said...: And many areligious people do know the Bible,

No, they know a handful of cherry picked passages that support their particular view. Conversely there are people among the religious who make serious study of the bible for all its meanings. The difference is that these people study it for more than its political usefulness, while those you support have no other purpose.

The same is essentially true for history. The left scours it for elements that support its worldview while serious scholars try to understand the entire evolution good and bad.; 9/15/15, 8:24 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Weirdly enough those Bible-thumping hater fundie kids were polite and respectful of someone with contrary beliefs. No hecklers, no interruptions? It's almost as if the Media portrayal of the religious Right is wholly inaccurate.; 9/15/15, 8:26 AM
Unknown said...: RC: same page you referenced at 9/15/15, 7:04, says "In Islam the Golden Rule is reserved solely for fellow Muslims."

and re: "Do you imagine Big Book of the Judeo-Christian religion--the Bible--provides a condemnation of slavery, or that it did not also offer suggestions for the "proper" treatment of slaves?" I don't image it, it just plain and flatly does. If you're asking the question in a serious manner, it's complicated by the context of 10 thousand years of cultural and language shift; it would be simpler for you to actually look instead of snarking.; 9/15/15, 8:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The government is not a person with its own money. It takes money from actual people for purposes which are necessary and too large for individuals to take care of by themselves--The country needs military defense and it is not something that can be done on an individual level."

We need many other things besides military defense...and we don't need as much military defense as we're paying for. (Of course, we're not paying for any military defense right now, but for military offense, which we need none of.)

As for Sanders' reference to the Golden Rule, he's making the point that we are not just a collection of autonomous individuals who should be concerned only with ourselves, but a society of interconnected members, and the welfare of all is dependent on--and in the better interests--of all. This is true of any healthy society.

Of course, we are not a healthy society, and are in the inevitable "deline and fall" phase that every society eventually reaches.; 9/15/15, 8:35 AM
Robert Cook said...: Unknown,

I'm not aware that the Bible condemns the practice of slavery. Can you provide more information?

As for the "golden rule" in Islam being applicable only to fellow Muslims, assuming this is true, it does not make null the fact that the principle is espoused in Islam. It is virtually a universally espoused principle; whether all cultures espousing it think it applies extra-culturally or not is beside the point. (We espouse the idea that "all men" are created equal and that "all men' have certain inalienable rights...yet many Americans don't seem to think that non-Americans should be treated as if they have these same inalienable rights.); 9/15/15, 8:52 AM
Rusty said...: We need many other things besides military defense...and we don't need as much military defense as we're paying for.

Not according to our constitution.
But have at it.
We've had this conversation , you and I, and you couldn't defend your position vis a vis we don't need a military.; 9/15/15, 9:01 AM
Peter said...: Bernie's Bible says, "Covet that which is thy neighbor's; covet and then use force and threat of force to confiscate that which is thy neighbor's, so that it may be given to those government considers more deserving"?; 9/15/15, 9:15 AM
Robert Cook said...: Rusty,

I don't recall ever stating explicitly that we don't need a military, and I certainly don't recall being challenged on such an opinion...although, now that you've brought it up, I can't say that we do. And, as I said, we're not presently paying for "defense," but for "offense." As General Smedley Butler stated back in the 1930s, the military is just the armed muscle acting to make the rest of the world safe for American corporate and financial dominance.

(From his book:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.")

But forget my subversive opinions, and those of a decorated American military man, James Madison said it best and earliest:

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

And:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Madison's warnings have come true in our present day.; 9/15/15, 9:22 AM
dbp said...: @Cook, the military was just an example, there are others such as patent protection and interstate highways etc. Welfare is not something the feds should be involve with. It is most humanely and efficiently handled by local communities. Ideally by non-government voluntary organizations.; 9/15/15, 9:29 AM
Gahrie said...: I don't recall ever stating explicitly that we don't need a military, and I certainly don't recall being challenged on such an opinion...although, now that you've brought it up, I can't say that we do

Your pal Putin certainly wishes we didn't.; 9/15/15, 9:36 AM
Robert Cook said...: (Welfare) is most humanely and efficiently handled by local communities. Ideally by non-government voluntary organizations."

Is there data to support this? How do we know non-government voluntary organizations will form everywhere aid to the poor is needed? How do we know they will have the means to meet the needs in their communities? I commend all volunteer organizations for the work they do, but it is in the interest of the people to have government--that is, the people organized to manage and serve complex public society and its needs--to provide such aid, as well.; 9/15/15, 9:37 AM
Bryan C said...: "It's pretty amazing he went there. The only member of either party running for the nomination so willing to go an environment so aligned against him, and make his case anyway, and seek common ground."

Evangelicals may be aligned against him politically (and for good reason) but, unlike progressives, they're adults who understand the value of politeness and respect. They don't create hostile environments for their guests.

"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee."; 9/15/15, 9:43 AM
dbp said...: Is there data to support this?

There may be data but it seems intuitively obvious that a local community with limited means will do a better job allocating resources than some bureaucrat a thousand miles away who has (essentially unlimited funds).

How do we know non-government voluntary organizations will form everywhere aid to the poor is needed?

We don't. An essential part of freedom is to leave space for people to freely do what needs to be done.

How do we know they will have the means to meet the needs in their communities?

We are an extraordinarily rich country. Even the poorest parts are unimaginably rich compared to a hundred years ago. Nobody will starve.

I commend all volunteer organizations for the work they do, but it is in the interest of the people to have government--that is, the people organized to manage and serve complex public society and its needs--to provide such aid, as well.

Nonsense: This chokes charity, real charity, in its cradle. Shows no faith in humanity and creates dependence. It is also arrogant: You (bad people) are too greedy to help (though we will never know since we are taking away your means to help as well as the need), so we will steal from you, give to the poor and act like we are being humane.; 9/15/15, 9:50 AM
Bryan C said...: "It is almost like a complete perversion of the original biblical lesson."

That's exactly what it is. And when it becomes church doctrine it predictably brings the sort of rampant corruption that sparked the Protestant reformation in the first place.

Over and over again the Bible emphasizes the importance of individual commitment and action. Is your neighbor in need? Go help them. Yes, you. Right now. You don't get to hire someone to steal from your neighbor and give a cut of the loot to a different neighbor you like better. That's violence, not love.; 9/15/15, 9:59 AM
n.n said...: Sanders has a shallow recollection of American history, especially of events and circumstances leading to and surrounding the original compromise. His effort to reconcile individual dignity, intrinsic value, and natural imperatives leaves a lot to be desired. The social paradigms of his ideology that denigrate individual dignity, debase human life, and establish congruence, fatally color his perspective.; 9/15/15, 10:26 AM
Robert Cook said...: "You don't get to hire someone to steal from your neighbor and give a cut of the loot to a different neighbor you like better. That's violence, not love."

This is not what government aid to the poor is. It is the pooling of a portion of our taxes to provide aid to those who need it. Any of us could find ourselves in need at any time, and many of us who have paid taxes toward welfare will find ourselves at some point needing to draw assistance from it. Most people on welfare do not stay on welfare permanently or for prolonged periods. Many will get back on their feet and resume paying taxes, a part of which will go back into the pool of funds allocated to welfare.

(Given how badly our economy is being hollowed out from within by the gangsters of Wall Street and the Big Banks, this may change, and more people may have to seek assistance and for longer periods going forward. Of course, Bill Clinton put lifetime limits on how much welfare anyone may receive, so we may find ourselves eventually seeing just how well those "voluntary community organizations" do in meeting the needs of the indigent in our communities.); 9/15/15, 10:37 AM
Rusty said...: You still can't defend it.

IOW
The American creed is just for Americans, No others need apply.; 9/15/15, 10:37 AM
Robert Cook said...: "There may be data but it seems intuitively obvious that a local community with limited means will do a better job allocating resources than some bureaucrat a thousand miles away who has (essentially unlimited funds)."

Much that is "intuitively obvious" turns out to be wrong.

Resources are not allocated by a bureaucrat a thousand miles away, but are allocated according to specific guidelines for each area. The benefits available are paltry in comparison to basic cost of living. I have known people on welfare, and they have all had to scramble to find additional means to pay their bills and meet their basic needs. Many people on welfare have jobs, but their jobs pay too little to cover their basic expenses. (Some employers, such as Wal-Mart, encourage their workers to seek welfare to meet their needs, which means Wal-Mart is profiting off you and me, as they could and should pay their employees better hourly wages, obviating the need for their workers to seek government aid.); 9/15/15, 10:46 AM
Rick said...: which means Wal-Mart is profiting off you and me

What a foolish claim, but note the difference in tone. When he's talking about a person welfare is love not profit. But change the recipient to something he hates and welfare is miraculously transformed into "profiting off you and me". this argumentation assumes profit is evil despite the fact that advocates for profit (to people who vote as he does) in every comment. It's bizarre.; 9/15/15, 10:55 AM
Robert Cook said...: "You still can't defend it."

Heh. I can and I did. You just can't handle it, (the truth).

"The American creed is just for Americans, No others need apply."

No. Either "all men are created equal" and endowed with "certain inalienable rights" or none are. Such "inalienable rights" become, then, merely the temporary privileges designated to or withheld from a people by its government.

The Declaration of Independence did not specify "all men of the American colonies" are created equal or are endowed with certain inalienable rights, but "ALL men." It then proceeds from this claimed equality and inalienable rights of all to discuss why the colonists are justified in their declaration to remove themselves from the tyrannical control of Great Britain and its King.

Our laws protecting these rights--such as they are and insofar as they do, (not much, at present)--do not apply outside our borders, but they do apply to non-Americans within our borders, and the principle they embody applies globally.; 9/15/15, 10:59 AM
Known Unknown said...: "I'm taking care of my shit, you take care of your own shit. Don't bother me, and get off my lawn!"

Sounds awesome.; 9/15/15, 11:01 AM
Known Unknown said...: "Most people on welfare do not stay on welfare permanently or for prolonged periods. "

Cook needs to get out more. Some welfare has become sadly, generational in nature. He refuses to see the conditioning it creates in communities. It is the invisible yoke.

I have first-hand (albeit anecdotal) knowledge of this fact.; 9/15/15, 11:04 AM
Robert Cook said...: "What a foolish claim, but note the difference in tone. When he's talking about a person welfare is love not profit. But change the recipient to something he hates and welfare is miraculously transformed into "profiting off you and me". this argumentation assumes profit is evil despite the fact that advocates for profit (to people who vote as he does) in every comment. It's bizarre."

So many naifs, so little time: Welfare is aid allocated to people who need help meeting their basic needs of sustenance, (food, housing, clothing). Wal-Mart, a multi-billion dollar corporation owned by a family of multi-billionaires could choose to pay their employees living wages--that is, wages sufficient to meet the cost of living in the respective areas where Wal-Mart employs people. But that would lower their profits, so they choose to pay too little and they encourage their employees who need it to seek public assistance. In essence, you and I are paying Wal-Mart's part of their employee's wages that Wal-Mart could but won't pay. Our welfare dollars fatten Wal-Mart's profits.; 9/15/15, 11:05 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I have first-hand (albeit anecdotal) knowledge of this fact."

And I have first-hand (albeit anecdotal) knowledge of people who have sought and received welfare for periods of time when they have encountered difficulties, but who got themselves back together and stopped receiving welfare.; 9/15/15, 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Cookie is the guy who claimed that Christian leaders were responsible for many more deaths than the socialists (e.g. Mao, Stalin, Hitler).
When asked in the same thread to prove it, he disappeared. When chased down in other threads he denied making the claim.

Cookie also claims that the Nazis were not socialists. When confronted with Adolf's own words and with the facts of actual Nazi implementations of socialist programs, cookie offers someone else's opinion as 'proof' that the National Socialist German Worker's Party was actually not socialist.
When further evidence is provided proving Cookie wrong he just disappears.

Cookie is a trolling asshole with neither the smarts nor the personal integrity to debate honestly.

And sunsong, your display of ignorance about the Great Compromise is truly astounding...but not unexpected.

Rabid shitheels both of you.; 9/15/15, 11:15 AM
eric said...: Those in Venezuela are now experiencing Bernie Sanders golden rule. The good news is, Bernie believes, this time he can make it work!; 9/15/15, 11:24 AM
Gabriel said...: I don't know where I saw it pointed out. Possibly at Althouse, maybe even by Althouse.

The Golden Rule is not a license to impose your preferences on everyone else. Part of doing to others what you would have done to you is taking other people's wishes into account.

An example. I would like it if everyone gave me chocolate ice cream. But I would not like it if everyone gave me Anthrax Ripple even though everyone else seems to like it. So the Golden Rule demands that I NOT give chocolate ice cream to the people who would not like it.; 9/15/15, 11:30 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Cookie is the guy who claimed that Christian leaders were responsible for many more deaths than the socialists (e.g. Mao, Stalin, Hitler)."

You keep saying this, but you haven't shown where I made such an assertion.; 9/15/15, 11:33 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Cookie also claims that the Nazis were not socialists."

I do, as they were not.; 9/15/15, 11:35 AM
Rick said...: Robert Cook said...they choose to pay too little

You know who else chooses to pay welfare recipients too little: Robert Cook.

So many naifs, so little time:

Especially considering our educating you is a recognizably useless task.

In essence, you and I are paying Wal-Mart's part of their employee's wages

Again with the stupidity. If Cooke believed this he would advocate ending welfare for employed persons. Since he does not we know he is lying, and people who lie as part of their political activism should simply be ridiculed.

Welfare is aid allocated to people who need help meeting their basic needs of sustenance, (food, housing, clothing).

Consider this in light of Cooke's demonstrated affinity for lying in furtherance of his political goals. People on welfare virtually universally have cell phones, cable TV and other entertainments. Yet he tries to spin that welfare pays only for food, housing, and clothing. Given his ability to examine secondary effects in blaming welfare on Walmart doesn't it seem odd he cannot similarly understand that welfare is really funding these items since money is fungible?

Is this credible?; 9/15/15, 11:49 AM
Gahrie said...: Given how badly our economy is being hollowed out from within by the gangsters of Wall Street and the Big Banks

Comrade Cookie gets it wrong again. It is excessive government regulation, excessive government spending and public policy enforced by his Leftist friends that is hollowing out our economy.; 9/15/15, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Show me how to search comments here and I will get you that proof, you fucking liar.

Maybe Tim in Vermont can step in too because he was a part of that 'discussion'. But I suspect any efforts on my part will just send you running off to wherever it is you hide.; 9/15/15, 12:28 PM
JAORE said...: Whenever someone raises the "living wage" argument and applies it solely to Wal-Mart I smell BS. Of course locals that hit Wal-Mart or fast-food usually use vague terms like size of store or number of employees nation wide to cover their acts, but we know who they mean.

Don't you think the minimum wage worker at the corner flower shop not due a "living wage"? How about the floor sweeper at the High School? Is he/she not due a living wage? Why should we subsidizing those businesses?

Nope it's always focused on that nasty old Wally World or bad old, make-you-fat, McDonalds. Makes me think it isn't really a concern about the workers, but some other reason.

Maybe I'll ask a union organizer for a clue.; 9/15/15, 1:09 PM
dbp said...: @ Cook,

If you don't believe the NAZI's were socialists, why not google "national socialist workers party"

You are welcome.; 9/15/15, 1:29 PM
Bilwick said...: Bernie--like Jim Wallis and members of the Religious Left--should also take note of that "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods" before they promote envy, class warfare, and coercive redistribution of wealth.; 9/15/15, 1:52 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: So the resident Lefties here cannot justify Sander's statement: "I would also say that as a nation, the truth is, that a nation which in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back on racist principles, that’s a fact."
Like Sanders, they need to believe this to justify their hatred of the United States and the American constitution. It is a positive good to destroy a racist system, after all.
And note that Sanders ends his statement with the phrase "that's a fact." This is not an argument that he's making. He is not trying to prove that his take is valid. He is simply stating a fact, as far as he is concerned. He does not want to argue about it because he would be making an argument that cannot succeed.; 9/15/15, 2:37 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Charles C. W. Cooke ‏@charlescwcooke Sep 14 (tweet)

Look at how Sanders was treated at Liberty. Now imagine Santorum at Oberlin. You’d see safe spaces, interruptions, people chained to things.; 9/15/15, 2:55 PM
sunsong said...: The nation was founded on the racist principles of slavery. That's a fact.; 9/15/15, 3:26 PM
Rusty said...: That's right , Bob. even the brown people you despise have those rights.

And no. You didn't. You just quoted people that agree with your point of view.; 9/15/15, 3:28 PM
Meade said...: Terry said...
"So the resident Lefties here cannot justify Sander's statement: 'I would also say that as a nation, the truth is, that a nation which in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back on racist principles, that’s a fact.'"

It's true though that the nation was created in many ways with many principles and some of those principles were based on what most Americans now view as inhumane ideology: that natives and Africans and Asians and women and children could be treated as if they were not endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. What an extraordinary historical development that our system of government has allowed the nation to get as close to equality as it has. Sanders would have been wise to call that the true "American exceptionalism". The nation has indeed come a long way. I disagree that Bernie's particular leadership is what will take us further but otherwise what he said should not be particularly controversial.; 9/15/15, 3:35 PM
Meade said...: Lem said...
Charles C. W. Cooke ‏@charlescwcooke Sep 14 (tweet)

Look at how Sanders was treated at Liberty. Now imagine Santorum at Oberlin. You’d see safe spaces, interruptions, people chained to things.
-------------------------------------

President Obama said something similar:
"The idea that you’d have somebody in government making a decision about what you should think ahead of time or what you should be taught, and if it’s not the right thought or idea or perspective or philosophy, that that person would be — that they wouldn’t get funding runs contrary to everything we believe about education," he said.

"I mean, I guess that might work in the Soviet Union, but it doesn’t work here. That’s not who we are. That’s not what we’re about."; 9/15/15, 3:40 PM
Rick said...: It's true though that the nation was created in many ways with many principles and some of those principles were based on what most Americans now view as inhumane ideology: that natives and Africans and Asians and women and children could be treated as if they were not endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

What a brave effort to re-imagine the issue, but this isn't the allegation. The statement was that this country was "founded on the racist principles of slavery", which is false. "Founding" would mean these were the motivating principles. Thus it would be correct to say the Confederacy was "founded on the racist principles of slavery". And I think reasonable people understand and agree with this distinction. Why else would they substitute a more defensible argument rather than stick to the original statement?; 9/15/15, 4:23 PM
Robert Cook said...: "That's right , Bob. even the brown people you despise have those rights."

If you're talking to me, I have no idea what "the brown people you despise" refers to.; 9/15/15, 4:32 PM
n.n said...: Slavery in America was largely a de facto racist institution, but that classification was not based on principle or the law.

In fact, not since the State-establishment of diversity policies, has America engaged in uniform discrimination as a matter of law. Not since the State-establishment of pro-choice/congruence (i.e. "=") policy, has America engaged in discrimination based on orientation and behavior. Not since the State-establishment of pro-choice/abortion policies, has America -- or any country, really -- engaged in the indiscriminate killing of [wholly innocent] human lives with an unprecedented scale and scope.; 9/15/15, 4:39 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Don't you think the minimum wage worker at the corner flower shop not due a 'living wage'? How about the floor sweeper at the High School? Is he/she not due a living wage? Why should we subsidizing those businesses?"

Of course they are. But we don't know if these other businesses (and their like) are encouraging their employees to seek public assistance in lieu of offering them sufficient wages to meet their needs. We don't know what the profit margins are for such small business as you mention as compared with the profit margins for Wal-Mart. While we should expect and hope for any employer to pay their workers a living wage, one must first look at and criticize the larger employers who can better afford to pay a living wage and don't before pouncing on the small businesses who may be working at the very limits of their financial capacity. There is a qualitative difference between Wal-Mart's financial means and that of the local mom-and-pop florist or cobbler. Such small businesses may truly not be able to afford paying high enough wages to be considered a living wage. Such businesses may very likely not be employing many employees (or any, other than the business owners themselves, or their family members), or may only minimally employ part-time employees.

You can't excuse the predatory actions of a Wal-Mart or similar entity by comparing it to small businesses orders of magnitude smaller in size, revenue, and profit.; 9/15/15, 4:53 PM
hombre said...: If Bernie were really a "perfected" Jew, he would renounce socialism. 😈; 9/15/15, 5:22 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: One argument that works strongly against the idea that the United States was founded on racist principles is that it although Article One mentions that "Indians not taxed" are not to be counted for purposes of the census and representation in the House (though there is a great deal of uncertainty about what this means) and "3/5 of all other persons" are to be counted, it doesn't deal with people of mixed race. Any nation that is really founded on racist principles has to deal with the legal status of mixed race individuals.
There is also the issue of what it would have meant to have a racist principle in the 1790s. The fact that people of different races could have children, and those children were fertile, would have been a powerful argument for racial equality to educated people of 18th century. In those days, before Darwin and Mendel, science and tradition both said that a human being was a creature who had a human mother and a human father.; 9/15/15, 6:32 PM
Rusty said...: Blogger Robert Cook said...
"That's right , Bob. even the brown people you despise have those rights."

If you're talking to me, I have no idea what "the brown people you despise" refers to.

No surprise there.; 9/16/15, 6:03 AM
Robert Cook said...: "No surprise there."

Yep, no surprise because you're making shit up.; 9/16/15, 6:44 AM
Rusty said...: Nope.
A few years ago you stated that the United States only needed a military large enough to defend our boarders. You stated the National Guard would serve that purpose admirably.
When The United States went to Iraq, under the auspices of HJR 114, to impose some sort of stability you stated that the Iraqis was not worth one American life and their freedom wasn't any of our business.

I don't need to "make shit up", Bob. Your barely cogent ramblings are more than enough.

I'd school you on the value of labor and its markets but your too ideologically indoctrinated to understand.; 9/16/15, 7:10 AM
Robert Cook said...: "A few years ago you stated that the United States only needed a military large enough to defend our boarders. You stated the National Guard would serve that purpose admirably."

I have said we should reduce our military drastically, to less than half the size it is now. (at least). What of it? Our military budget is greater than virtually the rest of the world combined...and to what effect? It's helping bankrupt the country, (as Madison warned), and it hasn't achieved any successes (beyond smashing things and killing people) in over a half-century.

The National Guard never enters my mind...they might as well not exist for all they are present in my consciousness, so I can't imagine I would have said anything unprompted about them being sufficient to guard our borders, (the boarders can take care of themselves).

We did NOT go to Iraq to "free" the Iraqis. Anyone who claims to believe such an absurdity is lying for ideological or propaganda reasons, or is a fool. (That aside, "freeing" a people is not a legal basis to invade a country. We have never been interested in freeing anyone; we are interested only in gaining geopolitical dominance and control over access to the resources of other countries...this is what virtually all war is about.) Moreover, we FUCKED UP Iraq, as was predicted, rendering the conditions for the people there worse than they were under Hussein. If you're claiming I "despise the (brown-skinned)" Iraqis because I rightly opposed our illegal invasion, that's an idiotic slander, ignoring the total hash we have made of our entire grotesque and criminal invasion of the middle east.; 9/16/15, 10:15 AM
Robert Cook said...: America, Fuck Yeah!; 9/16/15, 10:39 AM
Rusty said...: As per HJR 114 Bob.

"; we are interested only in gaining geopolitical dominance and control over access to the resources of other countries...this is what virtually all war is about"

See. This kind of fabulist thinking is why people giggle about you behind your back.

Like garage, I don't think you've ever had a thought that you've come up with on your own in your life.

You're a bore.; 9/16/15, 11:56 AM
Robert Cook said...: Ho-hum.; 9/16/15, 12:25 PM
Bilwick said...: Ever notice how the people who complain the loudest about some of the Founders countenancing and/or trafficking in chattel slavery are invariably the biggest State-f*ckers--i.e., people who lack even the basic appreciation for human liberty, and usually are actively hostile to it? (No one like that here, of course.); 9/16/15, 2:06 PM