So you are saying that you use incorrect vocabulary, in responding to someone else, just for me. You really do care! I would rather you not promote the misuse of language than just try to make me happy. If not for me, do it for yourself and the future of our country. I really have no idea what "ellipses and innuendos" is supposed to mean. I will never use christian doctrine and concepts to analyze a christian-writting text again (at least on these boards), is that better?
<b>rimbaud</b>: all this because you don't like my use of the word "perturb!" What a huge waste of time. Your smiley face didn't correct my word selection. How elliptical of you!!! My dictionary has "perturb" as a transitive verb meaning to cast into confusion. That's good enough for me. If you don't like it, I'll have to uselessly throw myself on your mercy: it was 4 AM when I wrote it with a wailing newborn in the background. You can do whatever you like; just do it fairly and even-handedly. If not I may challenge you. You may do likewise if you are of a mind. By the way, check your spelling of the word "writing," oh guardian of the English language!!!!!!!!
RR: Two things. First: YOU MADE A FACTUAL ERROR! Just to let you know, President Clinton's own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was a former Republican Senator. W was not the first to do this in recent times. Second: You did really misuse the word perturb. It's only valid as concerns the emotional state of the object of perturbation. You can't perturb an inanimate object. You probably meant "pervert." Rimmy's mistake was a typo. Yours was a mistake in usage. Such can be confusing to debate.
<b>haven</b>: "YOU MADE A FACTUAL ERROR! Just to let you know, President Clinton's own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was a former Republican Senator. W was not the first to do this in recent times. RR: I merely asked an insinuating question. I made no statement or assertion, so there could be no factual error. I honestly didn't know the answer. <b>haven</b>: Second: You did really misuse the word perturb. It's only valid as concerns the emotional state of the object of perturbation. You can't perturb an inanimate object. You probably meant "pervert." RR: does it really matter? It kind of clanged when I re-read it, but it was 4 AM with a crying baby underfoot. It just didn't seem to matter that much at the time. So sue me! Or better yet, sue my English teacher. <b> haven</b>: Rimmy's mistake was a typo. Yours was a mistake in usage. Such can be confusing to debate. RR: Damn, man, why can't you ever cut me that kind of slack? You are giving rimmy a wide berth. He didn't capitalize Christian either! In retrospect, I do wish I had used pervert instead of perturb; it would have been more fitting with bin Laden. So I used a word somewhat inappropriately. Rimbaud mocks me for it. Which is worse?
Also, Clinton replaced George Stephanopolous with David Gergen, a Reagan Republican. I think the post was Chief of Staff but I could use confirmation here. Although I'm not a religious person, I don't have a problem with Bush having faith, especially if its what helps keep him off the bottle (as he's said in the past). What I dislike is how the author presumes to know who is and isn't blessed by God. Alot of good people died on September 11. Many of their family and friends are still trying to pick up the pieces. Were all of them deficient in their faith, reverence or piety? Did all of these thousands of people fail to devote themselves to religion as fervently as Dubya? Is their pain a punishment from God? If you're going to assume that success and peace of mind comes from God, you also have to assume that suffering comes from God too. It's so typical of too many religious zealots (disclaimer: I am NOT calling RichRocket a zealot) to assume that their (or the persons they admire) prosperity is the result of their public displays of faith rather than good luck. Who's to say God's involved at all?
Gergen may have had a post in his administration, but he primarily used him as a political campaign advisor. It was really weird; Clinton was paying a conservative Republican to help him win an election. Can't get any stranger than that. Well, I guess you could... if Clinton had been a real liberal as opposed to a moderate sell-out with a pinch out for ideological selling-out for votes =).
<b>timing</b>: I asked if you were anti-Bush or anti-church? I didn't assert either one but those are the logical choices I can take from your remarks. I'm certainly not anti-Bush but I don't agree with some things he's done and I'm certainly not anti-church as I recognize that religion does serve it's purposes. I would say that I am anti proliferation of religion, if there is such a thing. It's a strange thing about religion where religious groups get angry when people dismiss them yet these same religious groups are dismissing me when they try to insult my intelligence with their bible thumping. <b>RR: Are you saying that Bush controlled the US Supreme Court?</b> Let me say you wanted me to point out the lies and misrepresentations and I did so. Bush no more controlled the Supreme Court than Gore controlled the Florida Supreme Court. Gore no more controlled the Democratic canvassing boards than Bush controlled the Republican operatives who illegally placed missing info on only Republican ballot registrations. There was deep chicanery on both sides in Florida so saying Bush survived Democratic political chicanery is a lie at worst and a misrepresentation at best. <b>RR: You are mistaking GWB for the Republican political machine. From all accounts that I've seen or read (and I saw one just this morning), GWB retired to his ranch and said to call him when it was over. Yes, he probably had to sign some papers or something, but his LOW profile in all this compared to Gore's HIGH profile is indisuptable.</b> Once Bush received the Republican nomination for President he is the Republican political machine. He's the #1 man on the totem pole. Every lawsuit made during the election was on GW's behalf and many even had GW's name on them. He was the man in charge and the one responsible whether he was actively making those decisions or not. James Baker being brought in certainly smelled of the Bush family decision making. Also, some of the lawyers, including the chubby one who did poorly in Florida who's name I've forgotten, were even close family friends of GW and the Bush family. <b>RR: I'm not sure what event of lying you are talking about, but no doubt he wanted it to remain buried in the past. Everyone breaks campaign promises. This section is somewhat exagerated but it is, I think, meant to be a start contrast to Clinton's continual lying and you have to admit that Bush shines in that comparison.</b> George Bush in an interview with a Texas magazine was asked if he had been arrested in the last 25 years and he said no. His campaign manager later admitted that it was not true and then it was leaked about his DUI. Drawing a contrast is fine but you can clearly see he lied and this misrepresents that. <b>RR: How could it be any other way? God especially honors those who honor him. That's why it's important to honor Him.</b> I don't understand why you can't see why this is insulting. If I'm a Hindu then that means God doesn't honor me? If I'm agnostic then I'm somehow less of a person because you say God especially honors Christians who honor him? It's like two kids on the playground, na ni na ni boo boo, he likes me better. Of course some people don't even believe in Him so it's really amusing for them to be told God doesn't honor them. <b>RR: At least one of his cabinet persons is a Democrat. When was the last time that happened?</b> The piece says he appointed his enemies to high places in his government. Not exactly true is it? <b>RR: It's an opinion. Every opinion is propoganda I dare say. It's not widely diseminated. It does not formally represent the President or the Republican Part or the Church. You don't like it, so you slander it by calling it propoganda.</b> Of course it's an opinion but it's an offensive opinion. Does God like GW more than Gore? Did God guide Clinton over Bush Sr? I mean c'mon. Propaganda might be a strong term so I apologize if that's offensive but this article is as offensive to me as possibly the use of the word propaganda might be offensive to you. Religion is always trying to convert, to "spread the word of God". Some people like myself find that offensive and insulting, especially within the context of politics and government. Thank god for separation of church and state.
<b>shanna</b>: I was hoping to hear back from you as regards my above responses. Are we dropping the ball again?
While RR may have misused the word "perturb", you are incorrect as to your definition. One of the most important theories currently in use in quantum mechanics is Perturbation Theory, in which apporiximations to Schroedinger's Equation are made by considering the perturbation of an energy field caused by moving electric charges. I won't go into too much detail but I took 2 semesters of graduate quantum mechanics so I have a fairly decent working knowlede of QM, and I am fairly certain that when physicists talk about perturbation they are not talking about mood swings....
<b>shanna</b>: Still waiting. <b>timing</b>: "It's a strange thing about religion where religious groups get angry when people dismiss them yet these same religious groups are dismissing me when they try to insult my intelligence with their bible thumping." <b>RR</b>: Why is that an insult to your intelligence. The Bible is more concerned with spirituality. <b>timing</b>: "Let me say you wanted me to point out the lies and misrepresentations and I did so. Bush no more controlled the Supreme Court than Gore controlled the Florida Supreme Court. Gore no more controlled the Democratic canvassing boards than Bush controlled the Republican operatives who illegally placed missing info on only Republican ballot registrations. There was deep chicanery on both sides in Florida so saying Bush survived Democratic political chicanery is a lie at worst and a misrepresentation at best." <b>RR</b>: I can possible go with the misrepresentation aspect of this! <b>timing</b>: "Once Bush received the Republican nomination for President he is the Republican political machine. He's the #1 man on the totem pole. Every lawsuit made during the election was on GW's behalf and many even had GW's name on them. He was the man in charge and the one responsible whether he was actively making those decisions or not. James Baker being brought in certainly smelled of the Bush family decision making. Also, some of the lawyers, including the chubby one who did poorly in Florida who's name I've forgotten, were even close family friends of GW and the Bush family." <b>RR</b>: He is not the machine but he is the ramrod. His name was necessarily on those lawsuits because he was the candidate. GWB is by reputation an excellent delegator. So what if Baker was brought in and it smelled of Bush family decision-making: that is further evidence of delegation. Same with the chubby lawyer fella. <b>timing</b>: "George Bush in an interview with a Texas magazine was asked if he had been arrested in the last 25 years and he said no. His campaign manager later admitted that it was not true and then it was leaked about his DUI. Drawing a contrast is fine but you can clearly see he lied and this misrepresents that." <b>RR</b>: I'm neither saint nor purist. There are lies and there are LIES. Let's be realistic here. <b>timing</b>: "I don't understand why you can't see why this is insulting. If I'm a Hindu then that means God doesn't honor me? If I'm agnostic then I'm somehow less of a person because you say God especially honors Christians who honor him? It's like two kids on the playground, na ni na ni boo boo, he likes me better. Of course some people don't even believe in Him so it's really amusing for them to be told God doesn't honor them." <b>RR</b>: Why is it insulting if you consider it meaningless? Is there something nagging at you about it? The Bible says that God honors those who honor Him, period. There is no taunting. <b>timing</b>: "The piece says he appointed his enemies to high places in his government. Not exactly true is it?" <b>RR</b>: Norm Manetta, Secretary of Transportation (?) is a Democrat, so if you consider Democrats his enemies, he has appointed at least one of them to a high place in his government. <b>timing</b>: "Of course it's an opinion but it's an offensive opinion. Does God like GW more than Gore? Did God guide Clinton over Bush Sr? I mean c'mon. Propaganda might be a strong term so I apologize if that's offensive but this article is as offensive to me as possibly the use of the word propaganda might be offensive to you." <b>RR</b>: Propoganda is not an offensive word. You may not agree with the article but to call it offensive or propogandic is, to me, an unfair attempt to discredit it. The unwritten aspect of this piece is the underlying reality of spiritual warfare in our world. Spiritual battles which are sometime lost (Clinton?) and sometimes won (GWB?). The important thing is NOT TO LOSE THE WAR. <b>timing</b>: "Religion is always trying to convert, to "spread the word of God". Some people like myself find that offensive and insulting, especially within the context of politics and government. Thank god for separation of church and state." <B>RR</b>: Check out your money: "In God we trust." Be on time for the opening of a senatorial session and you'll hear a prayer of invocation. This unsurpassed republican form of government that we enjoy was founded by religious men and, indeed, they have written that it would take men of faith and religious tradition to keep it alive. It seems to me that their attained objective was to not compel any individual to worship in any particular fashion, but that does not preclude the inclusion of religious values and traditions in the governmental entity itself. Again, check your money, etc. Those values and traditions were included from the very beginning. The phrase "separation of church and state", I think, was born in the 1940s--- not coined by Thomas Jefferson! One of the foundation of our Christian tradition is Free Will. That is why you should not be threatened by a Christian foundation to your US government. The more we push God out of our precious government, the more fragile it has and will become.
Minetta was demoted by Bush from Commerce to Transportation, which is probably the least partisan position in the cabinet.
Actually, Manetta was "re-employed" by Bush as he was out of a job when Clinton left the White House. No argument, though, about the relative impotence of the Transportation cabinet position-- although in these times it has more importance than in any time in history I would guess.
one democrat does not a bi-partisan cabinet make, as was hinted pre-inauguration. bush asked some demo senators, but that was probably just a sneaky way to insure a republican senate.
Dylan: From dict.org: Perturb \Per*turb"\, v. t. [L. perturbare, perturbatum; per + turbare to disturb, fr. turba a disorder: cf. OF. perturber. See Per-, and Turbid.] 1. To disturb; to agitate; to vex; to trouble; to disquiet. Ye that . . . perturb so my feast with crying. --Chaucer. 2. To disorder; to confuse. [R.] --Sir T. Browne. Both definitions contain a conotation of emotion disturbance. It's important to note that the close synonyms contained on each line effect each other. One cannot "vex" a particle. one cannot "confuse" a particle, as far as I can tell. It's very possible that the original adoption of the word "perturb" that you point out was a deviation from standard meaning. In any event, if such is a scientific phenomena, I think we can rule it out as a vindication of RR's usage. And I think my definition stands.
Aren't Senatorial replacements needed in short order (i.e. due to death or leaving of office) named not elected? There goes that theory (if I'm correct) of another Republican conspiracy to steal the Senate! Cohen (a very independent Republican from Maine-- that hotbed of Republicanism) was Clinton's Secretary of Defense in only the second Presidential term and was a curous choice, I think. I don't know what promises were made and I don't know which Democratic Senators were offered what, but the transition period to the Bush administratiion was crunched by the election fiasco.
This is a misrepresentation of fact. The actual term was coined by the supreme court in the 1940's but the reality is that the theme of seperation of church and state is clearly one belonging to the founders of the constitution. First there are a couple of quotes by James Madison among others which are often cited in defense of a religious state. These are wrong. Documentation follows. Did Madison ever say that our future is staked on the 10 commandments? Did Madison ever say that religion is the foundation of government? Did the Supreme Court of New York, in an 1811 decision, ever say that the First Amendment was "never meant to withdraw religion...from all consideration and notice of the law?" Did Supreme Court justice and early legal historian Joseph Story every say that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was near universal consensus that "christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state?" Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution "connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity?" Furthermore, there is a 10 part document online detailing the evidence in favor of the concept of the seperation of church and state. I will include the first part here, and give links to the remaining 11 parts. It is filled with quotes by the founding fathers that are hard to refute. Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10
Bush wanted Sen John Breaux (D) to be in his cabinet. The Governor of Louisiana is a Republican. I don't think that was a coincidence.
<b>outlaw</b>: Breaux long has been a very moderate Democrat, so naturally he would be a logical choice by the Bush team. <b>Otto</b>: What are you saying I'm misrepresenting? There is a casual assumption that the term "separation of church and state" is even in the Constitution. My comment about that was right on. Certainly there are some prohibitions toward the church's involvement in government, but there are also some obvious inclusions. Aren't their Godly references in both The Constitution and The Bill of Rights? Don't they open sessions with prayer? Wasn't it mostly really about not having an official church such as the Anglican Church of England?
If you'd read the documents outlined in this article you'll see that Madison, Jefferson, Washington and others were adamant about not allowing religion to become part of the US government. One minor example incase you're too lazy to read: The articles go through personal letters and official documents and the theme again and again is that the premier fathers of this nation were all adamant that religion should be completely eliminated from our government, despite the general wishes of the people of the country. I felt your statement was misleading because it implied that the concept of the seperation of church and state was not around until the supreme court came up with their ruling. The words were new, but the idea is one that dates back to the end of the Articles of Confederation. Another Quote: From James Madeson: Want me to keep going? The prayer and the inclusion of god in the preamble are artifacts of the time. The your information is infered from these artifacts. The founding fathers, however, typed it out clearly, in a way where no infrence is required. They intended to seperate religion from the state, all to varying degrees, but all to a degree much greater than you seem to suppose.
I guess you'll have to keep on keepin' on because there is evidence of Judeo-Christian tradition throughout our government, although there are elements trying to root it out continually. If they were "adamant" about keeping the two so separate why have we had so many battles to this very day to FURTHER eliminate the intertwining? The verbage "separation of church and state" came into being in the 1940s and from that point forward the vestiges of religious tradition that had existed in our governmental entities began to be expunged at an accelerating rate FROM THE TIME OF MADISON, JEFFERSON AND WASHINGTON. In a nutshell the effect of "the separation" become rampant after the phrase coinage in the 1940s. Too lazy to read.... ouch!!!!! That treaty language you cited for the benefit of my lazy butt seems more intent on pacifying "Mussulman" concerns. Did it have any other official capacity or impact?
