Obama administration 'anti religious,' Gingrich says

[Oliver]

I wonder if Gingrich is trying to say that religious presidents who hear God's orders do a heck of a Job.

 

[SezMe]

The BG party believes government is the solution.

.....

The SG party believes government is the problem....

I could go on, but wouldn't this be more logically consistent?

No, it would be called the fallacy of the excluded middle. The BG party thinks government can be part of the solution. The SG party is enamored of big military. When you trade in that black-and-white TV for something more realistic you'll get a much sharper picture.

 

[Infoexcavator]

I did not vote Obama because of his involvement with Wright, I thought hanging with a radical nut made him too religious or too stupid to receive my vote. But if Obama actually is anti-religious, I think that improves his stature in my eyes...

 

[DrBaltar]

No, it would be called the fallacy of the excluded middle. The BG party thinks government can be part of the solution. The SG party is enamored of big military. When you trade in that black-and-white TV for something more realistic you'll get a much sharper picture.

The point is political parties should have an agenda that is self consistent. Someone promoting small government should not also promote intrusive religion and morality.

 

[gdnp]

Well, if Newt says it, it must be true. If you can't trust a guy named Newt, who can you trust?

leftysergeant, gdnp, quixotecoyote, Puppycow, feel free to contribute something of substance here. I can get this quality of posting from any 3rd rate forum made up of high school dropouts who somehow think they have a clue. Which is why I came to JREF. I'm hoping for a more intellectual conversation filled with nuggets of methodical rational thought that skeptics claim to possess.

You can translate my comment as "potentially interesting topic. I am entering a short, cynical post because it is the easiest way to bookmark the thread. Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated allegations of a highly partisan politician on the opposition president does not constitute evidence worthy of debate. When something of substance is posted I will make a more substantive response. Otherwise I will let the thread die a deserved death".

 

[Tricky]

Skink?

Actually, Skink is quite a trustworthy guy, though a little odd, what with the roadkill thing.

 

[DrBaltar]

You can translate my comment as "potentially interesting topic. I am entering a short, cynical post because it is the easiest way to bookmark the thread. Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated allegations of a highly partisan politician on the opposition president does not constitute evidence worthy of debate. When something of substance is posted I will make a more substantive response. Otherwise I will let the thread die a deserved death".

My apologies then. I just see some people posting knee-jerk reactions and using juvenile "arguments" exclusively here. To bookmark a thread I usually just click "Thread Tools" and select "Subscribe to this thread".

 

[Beerina]

"Obama administration 'anti religious,' Gingrich says"

At first I thought, aww that's nice of Gingrich to say that . But then the article goes on to say:


This is confusing. If you don't want the government to dominate everything, and I don't, why would you want the government sticking its nose into your religion?

Tit for tat. As politics is now the religion of choice to allow people to massively stick their fingers into everything with a clear conscience, religion as an excuse now being a provincial faux pas (i.e. the secular political meme has adopted an argument from ethical intimidation as one of its "planks", or sub-memes, w.r.t. religion) it should be no surprise people are fighting back, which is to say, using another attack variant to regain their power.

 

[fuelair]

Skink?

Hmmm, Skink Gingrich, Skank Gingrich, Spunky Ginrich.........

Naaaah, still can't trust 'it.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

...I think this would apply to Bush. But do you think to Gingrich as well? The Contract with America that he was involved in promoted a smaller government, lower taxes, etc. Are you saying that when he and the other republicans took control of both houses in '95 they actively grew the size of government?...

Not quite...mainly that Gingrich and others didn't seem to do much to actively prevent the growth Bush promoted during his tenure. IIRC off the top, he made a few general public comments (which, admittedly, is more than many did) about government expansion and little else.

I'm not entirely aware of his voting records over the last ten years on issues of government expansion/restriction, but will research it. In the meantime, I am open to evidence that he was proactive about restricting expansion or the existing role of government in this timeframe.

The point is political parties should have an agenda that is self consistent. Someone promoting small government should not also promote intrusive religion and morality.

This, IMO, is why the GOP has lost equity with much of the American public. This dissonance seems not to register with the less thoughtful portions of the right-of-center. I am encouraged that there are conservatives (like yourself-?) that want the topic addressed/resolved. I agree that a stronger, more philosophically consistent GOP would be better for American politics.

 

[DrBaltar]

This, IMO, is why the GOP has lost equity with much of the American public. This dissonance seems not to register with the less thoughtful portions of the right-of-center. I am encouraged that there are conservatives (like yourself-?) that want the topic addressed/resolved.

Yes. I want a smaller government with a conservative financial policy without the gaggle of bible thumpers like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, GW Bush, McCain, and every conservative talk show host out there. Without presidents who sincerely believe they are the instrument of God and that what they are doing is right solely because they believe it's God's way. Without my children being subjected to prayer in schools or being taught that ID is probably a better theory than evolution. And without lobotomizing the nations scientific community.

Seriously... why is it so hard for these yahoos to come up with non-religious reasons to have a conservative economic policy and a small streamlined government?

 

[elbe]

Seriously... why is it so hard for these yahoos to come up with non-religious reasons to have a conservative economic policy and a small streamlined government?

I am unsure if I've ever heard a specifically religious reason for a conservative economic policy and small government. The conservatives are currently married to the religious right, so there is plenty of pandering of course, but I just haven't heard many people say god wants the government to be small.

 

[DrBaltar]

I am unsure if I've ever heard a specifically religious reason for a conservative economic policy and small government. The conservatives are currently married to the religious right, so there is plenty of pandering of course, but I just haven't heard many people say god wants the government to be small.

They don't come right out and say it because they know how silly they would look. They leave it to the conservative talk show hosts.

It's something along the lines of: our founding fathers were inspired by god to write the constitution and the constitution is all about small government.

They also say that when reading scripture, one finds a God who is interested in self-government through a set of principles, not in statism or the creation of central government.

Here Ramsey gives good points for saving money and keeping your debts low, but prefaces it with a bible verse:

God's ways of handling money work: in the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil (Prov. 21:20). Having cash on hand is a good thing, always having some money. Get out of debt; the borrower is a slave to the lender. These are things that worked 1,000 years ago, they worked 20 years ago, and they worked 20 minutes ago. They will work for the next 20 years.

He also uses these arguments as reasons for a small government. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go throw up.

 

[MattusMaximus]

True. There are actually good reasons behind many (certainly not all) conservative principles, but today's conservatives ignore those reasons and replace them with god's will and morality arguments.

Good point, DB. Which is the main reason why I won't even think about voting Republican until they clean up their act.

 

[DrBaltar]

Good point, DB. Which is the main reason why I won't even think about voting Republican until they clean up their act.

Does the fact that many republicans arrive at logically sound conservative principles by way of ridiculous religious woo mean you'd rather support democrats who propel the concept of overspending by several orders of magnitude, while prolonging an economic recovery, threatening the stability of the dollar and passing along a huge tax burden for the next few generations? I'm just picking the lesser of two evils here.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm just picking the lesser of two evils here.

Which was?

 

[gdnp]

I wonder how many Jews antireligious Obama persecuted at the White House seder today.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Tit for tat. As politics is now the religion of choice to allow people to massively stick their fingers into everything with a clear conscience, religion as an excuse now being a provincial faux pas (i.e. the secular political meme has adopted an argument from ethical intimidation as one of its "planks", or sub-memes, w.r.t. religion) it should be no surprise people are fighting back, which is to say, using another attack variant to regain their power.

Was that paragraph computer-generated?

 

[Bob Klase]

I could care less about who Gingrich is screwing, just as I could care less about Clinton and Monica.

You mean "could not" or "couldn't" care less.

Thirty-forty years ago people used to say "I couldn't care less". Since then it's degenerated into 'I could care less' meaning "I couldn't care less". For years it used to annoy the heck out of me when someone said it and I'd correct them.

Now "I could care less" if they want to use it.

 

[rwguinn]

Thirty-forty years ago people used to say "I couldn't care less". Since then it's degenerated into 'I could care less' meaning "I couldn't care less". For years it used to annoy the heck out of me when someone said it and I'd correct them.

Now "I could care less" if they want to use it.

I take the phrase "I could care less" as being "I could care less, but it's really not worth the effort"