The Observation Deck

I also think it is a fabulous myth that Obama is a "pretty big liberal" as you say. He's a pretty standard moderate as presidents as leaders of a ideologically divided country should be. For example the whole health insurance reform program is mostly a patchwork of republican ideas from the past 30-40 years.

Ryan Salo wrote: On a side note, are you capable of having a conversation without resorting to personally calling people haters or racist? It really makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Ryan, I called you neither of those things in this thread. If I did, please quote me, because I'm not seeing it.

As for being taken seriously, you're mistaking yourself if I actually care if you do or do not take me seriously. But I'd be careful about throwing stones in a glass house as the saying goes. No matter what I'd say you wouldn't take it seriously because it doesn't fit your ultra right-wing world view.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:you apparently choose to only look at one type because it's not Christian (and probably because its followers are not primarily white).

Maybe I misread this. Your assumptions about me in particular and conservatives in general are very dangerous for our country. You and I probably agree on a lot more than we disagree. Finding common ground is impossible with that mindset. I would be open to grabbing coffee with you anytime, it will probably surprise you how much common ground we can find.

Ryan, and anyone else too of course, I'd be curious to know who you think is the "lazy" one in the parable of the talents. Is it the master, who reaps what he didn't sow, or the slave who didn't "properly" invest his talent yielding no return on the master's investment but no loss either? The verses seem to lead to ambiguous conclusions which can make for a very interesting parable.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Ryan, and anyone else too of course, I'd be curious to know who you think is the "lazy" one in the parable of the talents. Is it the master, who reaps what he didn't sow, or the slave who didn't "properly" invest his talent yielding no return on the master's investment but no loss either? The verses seem to lead to ambiguous conclusions which can make for a very interesting parable.

If the master reaps, then he does do some work and is not lazy. In fact, I would say he does MORE work than is necessary and is rewarded for his efforts. How else can he afford to employ 3 (or more) servants AND travel (which is why he left them in charge of those talents in the first place)?

If I may, I have something I wrote up once that I don't believe I ever shared here. I think it is applicable...

Let me ask you, which of these biblical passages is written correctly:

Matthew 25 wrote: 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,'

Matthew 25 wrote: 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave the Romans bread, which they took a slice off of and then gave the rest onto me, I was thirsty and you gave the Romans something to drink which they passed on to me after they had a sip, I was a stranger and you showed me to the nearest government housing complex,'

As Ryan said, "Jesus calls his followers to give to the poor and provide for the needy."

Ellen Cormier wrote:I also think it is a fabulous myth that Obama is a "pretty big liberal" as you say. He's a pretty standard moderate as presidents as leaders of a ideologically divided country should be. For example the whole health insurance reform program is mostly a patchwork of republican ideas from the past 30-40 years.

Your descriptors seem mixed. There are such things as liberal-republicans, just as there are conservative-democrats (blue-dogs/Reagan-democrats).

In my opinion, for what that is worth, Obama is a "pretty big liberal" because he seems to treat every problem as one that the government must fix, growing it well beyond its Constitutional borders. I would view anyone with this mind-set as at least somewhat liberal.
I on the other hand feel more inclined to the that which Reagan stated: ""Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

As for the original point, regarding radical Christianity, I found this interview online from an upcoming documentary on the subject:

Anyway, here is an interesting link regarding interpretations of the talents parable: http://lwwdc.org/Talents.htm

It seems to make a lot more sense as a cautionary tale against avarice and greed rather than what appears to be the modern interpretation of Jesus as capitalist protagonist in interpretations such as this: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/0 ... e-talents/

It is a very interesting dichotomy.

Roy, we pay taxes to live in a civilized society. Helping the poor is a fairly small part of it. I would quote Romans 13:1-7 but that might be a mistake.

Your video clip, I'm not really sure what to say about that. It's nice to see the conservative attempt at humor but I still think it misses the mark.

I think Obama was wrongly interpreted as a "government will solve all your problems" kind of guy. I think he very much embraces a personal responsibility philosophy and a working together attitude. He was faced with a big challenge of preventing a second great depression. Stock market is up, corporate profits waaaay up. What do conservatives have to complain about with Obama?

As for your reagan quote, people who don't like governing or government should stay out of government. I don't think washington or Madison, et al would agree with Reagan at all.

Ryan Salo wrote:
Your assumptions about me in particular and conservatives in general are very dangerous for our country.

I have nothing against conservatives just as I have nothing against liberals. I think both add some value.

What I do not like are the extremists on either side that twist reality, push a hateful agenda, and generally are unwilling to see the good in anything outside their own radical ideas.

I really think that radical right and left are what's dangerous for this country, not my dislike for their politics.

As for you personally? All I can do is base my assumptions by what I've found you post here over the years. And those posts seem to come right out of Glenn Beck's "how to be a crazy and ignore reality" playbook. Gay hate, Muslim hate, anything anyone does who happens to be a Democrat hate. I mean it's all there in black and white. But you're right, there could be a lot more to you than just what you choose to make public here, I shouldn't judge.

You and I probably agree on a lot more than we disagree. Finding common ground is impossible with that mindset. I would be open to grabbing coffee with you anytime, it will probably surprise you how much common ground we can find.

I'm always open for discussion and I'm also always open to changing my mind or admitting I was wrong. I'm sure we do have a lot of common ground.

Ellen Cormier wrote:As for your reagan quote, people who don't like governing or government should stay out of government. I don't think washington or Madison, et al would agree with Reagan at all.

You don't??
The Tea Act.
The Quartering Act.
The Townshend Act.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act.
The Intolerable Act.

Were these not problems for the colonies, enacted by the British Parliament, and viewed as directly leading to the American Revolution?

I'll have to come back later to post more regarding Obama and personal responsibility.

Roy, you are being very disingenuous. The American revolution was due to lack of local representative government Among other things and a new government was the solution. So, I would be hard pressed to believe the founders would dig Reagan's quote. And perhaps if it had been said by a liberal or conservative activist, they might've been branded an anarchist and gotten the Saccho and Vanzetti treatment if they had perhaps taken matters into their own hands or even if it was only thought they had.

The quote is even more meaningless when you consider Reagan expanded government without paying for it and paved the way for the crisis we have today.

At the end of the day, I don't want to defend the government anymore than it needs defending. Government can solve some problems and it can stay out of others. I don't like that the "preacher" who did burn the Qur'an may get a little more government investigation than is warranted. He's an absolute slimeball as far as I can tell but he's probably within his constitutional rights to do what he did.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Roy, you are being very disingenuous. The American revolution was due to lack of local representative government Among other things and a new government was the solution.

Was there a single, over-arching government in the Americas? No, but there wasn't supposed to be either. Each state was independent with its own legislatures and governors. The Virginia House of Burgesses, for example.

The American Revolution was due to lack of representation in the British Parliament. Laws (like those I mentioned above) were enacted against the Colonies and they had no say in the matter.
This kind of stuff is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. It is, after all, a big list of grievances against the British Crown.

Ellen Cormier wrote:I don't like that the "preacher" who did burn the Qur'an may get a little more government investigation than is warranted. He's an absolute slimeball as far as I can tell but he's probably within his constitutional rights to do what he did.

I agree. I'm always reminded of this movie line:

President Andrew Shepherd in The American President wrote:America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

Jim DeVito wrote:I'll just leave this here...



Source: some blog who probably riped it off from the guy who took the picture...

But Jesus did not Bankrupt the Roman Empire

Grace O'Malley wrote:The only anger and hate I see here is Ryan Salo and his continual posting of "information" designed to incite and inflame hatred for an entire group of people.

It must be hard living with all that hate, fear, and loathing.

Ryan does not hate all Muslims.. just sayin.. Maybe, there is some projecting going on here..

Maybe Ryan follows the conservative christian playbook of not liking or trusting anyone that isn't white anglo-saxon male heterosexist bible thumping bound for that glory train kind of person.

Fear the pagans, fear the muslims, fear the queers. Boogaboogaboooga.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Because as we know, there are certainly no cases of Christian violence.

Did anyone argue that point?