What is a Republican

[Frame57]

Very Good! I am proud to be an American first and foremost. I am a bit pissed at the GOP, but I think they will get back to basics and root out the corruption that has seeped in.

[Sailor Steve]

Some of it is good, some of it is self-serving, most of it is overly simplistic, such as the typical take on the courts and abortion. It's a lot more complicated than that.

But the one that bothers me is this:

WHAT I AM . . . is an American who understands the difference between "censorship" and "choice".

A nice attempt to deflect complaints, but there is no question that the vast majority of censorship in this country, including attempted book bannings, comes from the right.

[Hylander_1314]

What gets me, is hearing Hillary, and Barrack talking about redistibuting wealth. Ok, how about their wealth? If they're so concerned, why don't they set the example by giving most of their's away first before demanding it others. And to hear them talk about elitists, well that's the pot and the kettle if I've ever heard it.

Hey Steve,

About the book banning in schools, I've talked with both of my kids teachers over the years and they're borderline socialists / communists. And I was utterly dismayed when my daughter was in 4th grade and told me that a book about the American War for Indepence was banned for being too violent, from the Public Schools. I know. I've had to unbrainwash my daughter on a regular basis. She now understands at the age of 16 and can mostly recite the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And she can actually carry on a well thought out, coherent conversation about them, and she actually has the nerve to debate them even with her instructors. (She was afraid of being labelled a disruptor type) but not anymore.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Some of it is good, some of it is self-serving, most of it is overly simplistic, such as the typical take on the courts and abortion. It's a lot more complicated than that.

But the one that bothers me is this:

A nice attempt to deflect complaints, but there is no question that the vast majority of censorship in this country, including attempted book bannings, comes from the right.

Have to disagree with you on that one Steve. It is left wing organizations that have have led conspiracy to re-write our history books. With regards to the founding Fathers and references to religion and prayer. It is the democrats who want to enact the "fairness act" in attempts to stifle talk radio and other media that promotes conservative points of view. What is fair is that the dems can do their own radio talk shows and if people like it, great! If not change the station.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Have to disagree with you on that one Steve. It is left wing organizations that have have led conspiracy to re-write our history books. With regards to the founding Fathers and references to religion and prayer.

I mentioned banning books, not rewriting history. As to the Founders, religion and prayer, I've spent the last two years making an intensive study of that very topic, and I think it's definitely the Right who want to change the story here. We can have that discussion if you like.

It is the democrats who want to enact the "fairness act" in attempts to stifle talk radio and other media that promotes conservative points of view. What is fair is that the dems can do their own radio talk shows and if people like it, great! If not change the station.

I certainly agree with you there. As with books, radio is a free market, and right-wing drivel is certainly what most of us saps like to hear (don't get me wrong, I only compare it to left-wing drivel, which is usually a lot more boring).

Originally Posted by August

That's certainly the popular belief but i've never seen anyone produce figures proving or disproving that. What was that quote about telling a big enough lie often enough?

Fair enough point, and at the national level arguably true. But since most banning attempts come at local levels, and most attempts are for moral reasons, and since the Right always tries to claim the religious high ground, I hope you'll forgive me for assuming, and continuing to assume, that that is the source.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...c=banned_books

Of course, one of the reasons included is "politically incorrect, racist or sexist language" some of it does indeed come from the other side. But you have to admit that the left is less likely to promote banning because of "profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult, “secular humanism” or “new age” philosophies".
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/most-banned.html

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I mentioned banning books, not rewriting history. As to the Founders, religion and prayer, I've spent the last two years making an intensive study of that very topic, and I think it's definitely the Right who want to change the story here. We can have that discussion if you like.

I certainly agree with you there. As with books, radio is a free market, and right-wing drivel is certainly what most of us saps like to hear (don't get me wrong, I only compare it to left-wing drivel, which is usually a lot more boring).

Fair enough point, and at the national level arguably true. But since most banning attempts come at local levels, and most attempts are for moral reasons, and since the Right always tries to claim the religious high ground, I hope you'll forgive me for assuming, and continuing to assume, that that is the source.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...c=banned_books

Of course, one of the reasons included is "politically incorrect, racist or sexist language" some of it does indeed come from the other side. But you have to admit that the left is less likely to promote banning because of "profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult, “secular humanism” or “new age” philosophies".
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/most-banned.html

Where shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked. I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.

[Onkel Neal]

I read this and was initially inclined to think it was an urban legend...surprise! It's true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/whatiam.asp

More power to you, Mr. Esseff. You proved the American Dream, and you have nothing to be ashamed of except the misfortune to be surrounded by have-nots who blame you for their lack of success in life.

[Sailor Steve]

[quote=Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...

The same Ben Franklin who requested Congress open with prayer was branded a heretic and even an atheist by religious leaders of his own day. Of course the reason was that he questioned the honesty and sincerity of those leaders.
http://americanrevolutionblog.blogsp...-stand_27.html

However, his actual stated beliefs would earn him similar treatment by any serious Christian leader today.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib..._Stiles_1.html

Franklin believed, but he expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which would, I believe, earn him the wrath of modern evangelicals were he to enter the political arena today.

Likewise Jefferson, who told his nephew Peter Carr to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

This was the kind of thing that led Christian leaders of his own time to oppose his presidency and label him and atheist.

I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked.

If we're talking about school textbooks, then I agree, to a point. Schoolbooks are always being rewritten to suit the times, and it's good to oppose it, if for no other reason than to keep the conversation alive. I dislike history books in general, unless they are tightly focused on a specific subject. I have come to prefer biographies of late, as they tend to give not only the subject's own writings and thoughts, but also those of his contemporaries. Last year I read Dumas Malone's massive six-volume, 3500-page biography of Jefferson, which led me on an entertaining journey through seven more books, culminating in Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

But I'm also fond of 'different' history books. Two favorites: Who Were The Founding Fathers, by Steven H. Jaffe http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Found.../dp/0805031022 which doesn't try to explain them, but rather shows what they thought of themselves and each other, then goes on to show from each generation's writings what they thought of the Founders, including their attempts to use those men's words to support a variety of different, and often conflicting, causes; which brings us back to the subject at hand.

The second is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority.../dp/1566636752 She is biased toward atheism, or at least unbelief, but she makes some good points about what each of the big six (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton) actually believed, or at least what can be culled from their own writings and the opinions of those who knew them.

Oh, and as to the Pennsylvania State House Bell (its original name), all the inscription shows is that Isaac Norris, who ordered it, was indeed a Christian, as were (presumably) all of his Quaker fellows. Except for those like Ben Franklin, who was definitely not a Quaker.

I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.

I hope so (on both counts).

[Frame57]

[quote=Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

The same Ben Franklin who requested Congress open with prayer was branded a heretic and even an atheist by religious leaders of his own day. Of course the reason was that he questioned the honesty and sincerity of those leaders.
http://americanrevolutionblog.blogsp...-stand_27.html

However, his actual stated beliefs would earn him similar treatment by any serious Christian leader today.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib..._Stiles_1.html

Franklin believed, but he expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which would, I believe, earn him the wrath of modern evangelicals were he to enter the political arena today.

Likewise Jefferson, who told his nephew Peter Carr to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

This was the kind of thing that led Christian leaders of his own time to oppose his presidency and label him and atheist.

If we're talking about school textbooks, then I agree, to a point. Schoolbooks are always being rewritten to suit the times, and it's good to oppose it, if for no other reason than to keep the conversation alive. I dislike history books in general, unless they are tightly focused on a specific subject. I have come to prefer biographies of late, as they tend to give not only the subject's own writings and thoughts, but also those of his contemporaries. Last year I read Dumas Malone's massive six-volume, 3500-page biography of Jefferson, which led me on an entertaining journey through seven more books, culminating in Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

But I'm also fond of 'different' history books. Two favorites: Who Were The Founding Fathers, by Steven H. Jaffe http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Found.../dp/0805031022 which doesn't try to explain them, but rather shows what they thought of themselves and each other, then goes on to show from each generation's writings what they thought of the Founders, including their attempts to use those men's words to support a variety of different, and often conflicting, causes; which brings us back to the subject at hand.

The second is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority.../dp/1566636752 She is biased toward atheism, or at least unbelief, but she makes some good points about what each of the big six (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton) actually believed, or at least what can be culled from their own writings and the opinions of those who knew them.

Oh, and as to the Pennsylvania State House Bell (its original name), all the inscription shows is that Isaac Norris, who ordered it, was indeed a Christian, as were (presumably) all of his Quaker fellows. Except for those like Ben Franklin, who was definitely not a Quaker.

I hope so (on both counts).

Well, let's begin a bit earlier. What in your opinion and education was the reason the pilgrims came to these shores? It will be interesting to prelude this before we get to the Founding Padres

[Onkel Neal]

@ Steve: Well done!

.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...there is no question that the vast majority of censorship in this country, including attempted book bannings, comes from the right.

That's certainly the popular belief but i've never seen anyone produce figures proving or disproving that. What was that quote about telling a big enough lie often enough?

On the other hand I do know that the Dems went to court in nearly every state in 2004 to get Nader's name stricken from the ballot. Censorship doesn't come more blatant than that imo.

[Molon Labe]

The biggest attempt at comprehensive censorship in the United States in recent memory was the Communications Decency Act of 1996--passed by a Republican Congress (with bipartisan support) and a Democratic President. (And struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court) The next biggest was a success... the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. You can argue over who pushes for this kind of **** more, but the truth is that both sides are about equally guilty.

[Blacklight]

Republicans also believe in the "Trickle Down Economics" (A central basis to their philosophy) which pretty substantially has been proven NOT TO WORK since the money doesn't "Trickle Down".

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

Republicans also believe in the "Trickle Down Economics" (A central basis to their philosophy) which pretty substantially has been proven NOT TO WORK since the money doesn't "Trickle Down".

Bingo!

We saw what 8 years of "Trickle down" meant for the people who aren't rich enough to lobby washington.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

We saw what 8 years of "Trickle down" meant for the people who aren't rich enough to lobby washington.

After 8 years of Reagan trickle down economics the 1990s were pretty good economy-wise so maybe you ought to explain what you mean by that.