Free Republic

Your question, and the posts here, illustrate the problem in the system.
No one really likes the two party system, but both sides will, in the end, vote for their party's candidate. Why? So that the other party's candidate doesn't get in.

Let's face it, we like to blame the system for the lack of choice, but when it comes time to choose, our selection ends up being from one of the two major parties. In the end, we make up the system, we are the system. As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

It's going to take some work to change that. Work by us, the system. If you don't like what you see, then get active in the GOP. Join! Go to the local meetings and speak your mind. There are things that you can do. If you are doing things, bravo! If not, why not? As Ronald Reagan said: "If not us, then who? If not now, when?". And let me add this: "If not us, then it will be the RINO."

Having said that, the more I listen to what Barr has to say, the more I like him.

Hate to say this, but it would be better for Republicans with either one of the democrats in office. Why? Because we can resist anything a demo would try to do.

With McCain in office, anything he wants to do will pass. Much better if he doesn't make it, then the GOP takes back the WH with a REAL Conservative in 2012. IMHO

Yeah, what does he think he is? A politician? Maybe as a second career.

You miss my point. General statements like these do nothing to advance your point. To make a cogent argument, you need to be specific. Would you accept any general statement on my part? I hope not.

So, to make your argument, you need to provide substantiation. Otherwise, your might as well hold your breath until people agree with you.

Let me give you an example, from the preface of the book: Here we have the establishment of Christianity by Constantine as the religion of the State. Instead of persecuting the Christians, he patronized them. From that moment the downward course of the church is rapid. Her unholy alliance with the world proved her saddest and deepest fall. It was then that she lost the true sense of her relationship to Christ in heaven, and of her character on earth as a pilgrim and a stranger. Now is that so hard?

But be careful with this passage. If you agree with this, then you must be for the separation of church and state, because that's what this excerpt says, that the "fall" of the church was because of ...[h]er unholy alliance with the world. Do you agree with that?

Sorry, this doesn't constitute proof of any sort. A link to an obscure book is meaningless. You should excerpt passages that substantiate your point.

BTW, who is this guy? I've never heard of him, and I'm fairly well up on stuff like this.

Agreed. They get 2,000 jobs, we lose 9,000.

VaR, give your son a HOOAH from me. My son-in-law is on his way for his 2nd tour later this year, so I (almost) know how you feel.

On that note, though, I don't see a parallel between your son and Harry. Your son serves proudly as one of the troops, but Harry can never be "one of the troops". Leaving the MSM out of this, do you really think that the bad guys wouldn't have found out about Harry eventually? Regardless, one of the things that the military avoids is unnecessary risk, and having a royal in their midst would represent an unnecessary risk.

He may be a Spare, but he is still a prize. I do agree that the "royals" gained a lot of points in WWII by staying in town during the blitz, but the situation is substantially different. (btw, both of my parents were in the Army in Britain at that time, so I'm familiar with the situation.) Like I've said, and you need to consider this, Harry represented a distraction and an unecessary risk. Do you think that he was treated the same as other troops? Not at all. You know that he was protected, and if even one additional soldier was assigned to protect him, then why was he there? And I can bet that there was more than one soldier watching out for him.

Then consider if he'd been snatched. What kind of concessions would be made to get him back? What would that propaganda be worth to the bad guys, and how much would it stoke their morale?

And just to be clear, I'd feel that way about any and all celebrities doing this.

Let's get this right. Having a "royal" in combat is a joke, and is dangerous. Rather than blaming the media for exposing this, we should thank them.

Here's why. Having a celebrity, whether it's a coddled member of the royal family or some Hollywood film star, is a distraction and a danger to the real troops who are there with a job to do.

Do you really think that "Harry" was an asset? Hardly. Without doubt, there were soldiers who were assigned to protect him, and had there been any real action, his powdered and perfumed butt would've been moved out of range to safety.

This was tantamount to a publicity stunt. Now this pampered, out of touch member of the "ruling" class can claim that he's a combat veteran. Give me a break.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the troops that were there were the ones who let this little farce be known to the press to get this loser out of their area of operations. Speaking as a soldier, the last thing that we need in a dangerous situation is any kind of distraction, and Harry would've been the biggest g*dd*mn distraction of them all. I, for one, see this as a contemptible stunt. This time, at least, don't blame the press for doing the right thing.

You are 100% correct. Which is why the early religious leaders in the country wanted to be certain that the new government would not get involved in religion. They had seen what happends when government and religion combine, which is what Europe was at the time. Religion was just another department of government.

Governments necessarily work to compromise, that's the way it's gotta be sometimes. That means that if you combine government and religion that there will be issues that you, or I, or both, will have to compromise on.

So, in the interests of religious freedom, we need to keep government out of religion. What a lot of people miss is that religion, therefore, must keep religion out of government. Huckabee showed me that he didn't get it when he said that he wanted "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." In order to do that would mean setting up a government operation to determine what those standards are, and to codify them into law. And when you put things into law, then you enforce them.

Now to your point about ...misinterpreting the Word. Let's keep that point in mind and not create law based on misinterpretations. Let's not forget that the Pharisees used "the law" effectively 2,000 years ago.

The reason isn't to limit religion, but to keep religion from being corrupted by government.

Kinda, sorta. Face it, being the majority means that you bring in people who are not true believers.

And since politicians, on both sides, are more interested in power than beliefs all they care about is the number of followers. If they care at all about beliefs, they only care insomuch as it will bring in more followers. The irony there is that politicians are the followers, not the believers.

This happens to majority parties. To become the majority party means taking in people with views that may or may not conform with your own.

Remember that at one time, the GOP was the minority party, and the dems were the majority. The irony is that in order to become the majority party meant that the GOP ended up with dem concepts as some of those dems moved to the GOP. It's unavoidable.

Good memory. Acutally, I was in the Coast Guard (regular and reserve). I had 16 years of service, and had taken time off of drilling because of extensive travel in my job.

Before 9/11, I started the process of getting back in. I talked to the Coast Guard, but they had strict age limitations, and so even with my prior service, they wouldn't look at me. The Navy had rules that were a bit complicated, so they were out as well.

Then I talked to an Army recruiter at a county fair, nothing formal just curious. The recruiter took my information and said that he'd pass it on to the relevant person in his office. Here's where it gets funny. The fair in question took place on Labor Day weekend 2001. The recruiter called me on Sept 12, 2001. My daughter took the call, and figured things had really gotten bad if the Army was calling her 50 year old father up.

Thank you, too. But, I’m an NCO myself, not a sir. ;-)

I believe that I have the record on joining the Army at an advanced age. I took the oath of enlistment 3 days before my 51st birthday. I joined the military originally in 1972, and with my prior service(16 years), I was able to join.

The kids I serve with, and they are kids, are a great bunch. I like to think that they appreciate an older soldier, and they definitely make me want to work as hard as I can.

To all soldiers out there, HOOAH.

Yes, I do. And I say that as a current member of the military.

When an individual in the military decides he knows better, then there’s a real problem. Either way.

I don't know about your ratio, but I can imagine that some would say: "Yes". If the ratios were reversed, I'd have to guess that you'd say yes as well. So, then, how much non-Chritian content is enough to say "no"?

And consider this. What if it were 1 part "pagan". Would that be different? Or 1 part Islamic?

I have a feeling that if an actual ratio were derived, it'd be substantially higher than 1 part. Not sure what, and I'm not saying one way or the other if any Masonic content does or does not make it Christian, just that it needs to be considered.

Masonic beliefs are not Christian.

The founding fathers were Masons.

Many of the concepts in the Declarations are Masonic.

It follows.

If you believe that Masonic belief is non-Christian, then you must believe that the founding fathers were non-Christians, and that this country was founded on non-Christian priciples.

Yes he did, because the murdered believed. That bolsters my point.