Comments Posted By mannning
Displaying 201 To 210 Of 475 Comments
CONSERVATIVES KEEP LEARNING THE WRONG LESSONS FROM REAGAN
Seems fair enough. Maybe cut only $32 billion out.
Comment Posted By mannning On 2.06.2009 @ 20:56
Comment Posted By mannning On 2.06.2009 @ 20:54You can’t just yank $62 billion from education spending and believe kids, teachers, and schools wouldn’t be catastrophically affected.
Does that mean we can’t take a very sharp scalpel and start cutting? Absolutely not.
CAN GINGRICH RIDE AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT WAVE TO THE OVAL OFFICE?
Good idea, funnyman! But, on a more serious note, have you noticed that no one cares to step forward and name lots of names here, including me, and I have a list. I believe it is reluctance to expose one-self to lawsuits and the glare of the media eye.
Comment Posted By mannning On 27.05.2009 @ 12:51
Why so it is Marriot. Never was a good typist. So, funnyman, you are claiming elitism with your nit?
Comment Posted By mannning On 26.05.2009 @ 15:14
Not being an elite myself, I stick to the plebian yellow stuff, so I can't answer your question. I must admit that Dijon tasted good once at a friend's house, and it is hard to get good ole yellow in Germany.
The measure, Mike, is the percentage of the population that claim Christianity---about 85%---versus the percentage that claim to be agnostic or atheist---about 8%. The remaining 7% or so are simply not committed to anything, except perhaps hedonism or one of a hundred exotic sects too small to track.
America will most probably never be "ready" for agnosticism or atheism. Being ready for those systems of (non)belief means rejection of Christ, which is a life-changing step for most believers, and they try hard to ensure that their children have the same religious upbringing.
I do hope that the implication of being "ready" does not indicate a superiority syndrome...
Comment Posted By mannning On 25.05.2009 @ 15:45
Yes, it is we who eat yellow mustard, we plebians, that make up the other 98% of the population. Elites are never seen at MacDonald's or Windy's, either, except for a show of their common touch with great fanfare--- once an election season. Neither do they stay at a Holiday Inn or Marroit hotel. It is the Four Seasons, or the Ritz. In fact, plebians almost never see a true elite in the flesh!
Comment Posted By mannning On 25.05.2009 @ 15:31
In my view, the American public wants a man for President who evidences a strong religious belief and commitment. The public is not quite sure of a man that espouses agnosticism or atheism in the role of President.
This is a degree-to-which question, I suppose, and it is very possible for the candidate to show his faith in a definite, dignified but quiet way, and not try to foster his religion onto the public, or to quote biblical passages all the time to make his points. Thus, he cannot leave his religion at home and church entirely--it is too important a test.
Speaking of litmus tests for the Presidency, this is one!
Comment Posted By mannning On 24.05.2009 @ 17:10
Newt has an insightful mind and a vast store of knowledge and experience. My take on his strategy is to step up to be the voice for conservative government, and hence the Republican Party, in the minds of the voters. His every move puts him in the spotlight with sound ammunition that impresses most thinking people in the audience. He may then be looking for a "draft Newt" movement come 2012 that quells his past problems, much as many notable politicians have done.
Comment Posted By mannning On 24.05.2009 @ 13:33
A quote from Mike Farmer:
-- however, the structure of the priests, the warriors and the laiety is still seen in our interventionist state which promotes the idea of esoteric knowledge at the top passed down to the plebians. The common folk are expected to have faith in the wisdom of the liberal priests. This esoteric knowledge which guides our moral direction is deemed necessary because the common people of the market and public sphere are driven by base desires and limiting self-interest, so moral guidance must be enforced from above to sustain orderly direction and fairness.
My statement of "the few" amd Mike's statement of the "priests" are really referring to the same thing; he merely points out that there is a hierarchy involved, which is obviously true.
But, so far, we have not named names or cited CVs in this Priesthood to any large extent, with one possible exception: David Horowitz in The Professors. They are the source of much progressive poison, and they do profess elitism. I should add that the exact or even approximate (i.e. hazy) hierarchy definition and positions would be necessary also, but I have no handy reference that shows this!
Comment Posted By mannning On 24.05.2009 @ 13:23
So the conflict in the party is between the Elite Attitudes and worldview of some few, versus the Grassroots Attitudes and worldview of the many. What an anti-democratic situation! That obviously makes knowing just who it is that is dictating to the many an important factor.
Comment Posted By mannning On 24.05.2009 @ 10:45
