Frustrating fact...

[Higgs Boson]

They SHOULD pass laws to protect us from our rights being taken away by others beliefs.

Hard thing to do when most right wing politicians are strongly touting their personal religious values and have strong views themselves on issues like gay rights based on their religion and are backed and elected by their religious right wing voters. They're not going to check that at the door when they get into office.

 

[andi]

I agree that is the position we are usually in with many of the GOP options. What I would love to see would be a conservative who has the religious foundation, but understands and respects the limits of the position they seek enough to know those beliefs are just as strong and true when left outside the office. I think the scariest thing is I truly believe that most of these religious candidates DO understand they are overstepping, but like you mentioned, they know their supporters don't mind as long as it gets their beliefs in the forefront.

Just to clarify: While I do not mind what a Candidates religion is or if they have one, the idea that we could have a President with a strong Religious foundation, but that respect their office enough to not abuse the power to get votes and further their own religion, would show a strength of character and honesty we very rarely see in politics.

 

[Mona]

Yes Andi, you are correct...I understood what you were saying the first time, but I guess it was just in the wording. Again, I was not disagreeing with your thoughts/intentions, just the way it was worded. (and I agree with what you are saying too.)

 

[Jill]

As far as I'm concerned, government should do very little other than protect our Nation and Liberty, and insure that one person's actions and beliefs do not infringe upon another's right to pursue their own happiness. Beyond this, it all goes south.

 

[alongman]

I agree that is the position we are usually in with many of the GOP options. What I would love to see would be a conservative who has the religious foundation, but understands and respects the limits of the position they seek enough to know those beliefs are just as strong and true when left outside the office. I think the scariest thing is I truly believe that most of these religious candidates DO understand they are overstepping, but like you mentioned, they know their supporters don't mind as long as it gets their beliefs in the forefront.

Just to clarify: While I do not mind what a Candidates religion is or if they have one, the idea that we could have a President with a strong Religious foundation, but that respect their office enough to not abuse the power to get votes and further their own religion, would show a strength of character and honesty we very rarely see in politics.

Very well said James! I agree - a politician should be elected based on what they bring to the table in a political manner, not what religion they represent. With that said, I was listening to day to NPR on my way home from work - they clearly defined that religion will be a HUGE decider in the upcoming GOP caucuses as we have a variety of religions represented. Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.

 

[LindaL]

Totally agree Adam!

 

[Higgs Boson]

With that said, I was listening to day to NPR on my way home from work - they clearly defined that religion will be a HUGE decider in the upcoming GOP caucuses as we have a variety of religions represented. Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.

Very well said.

 

[Mona]

Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.

VERY well said!!

 

[Jill]

Very well said James! I agree - a politician should be elected based on what they bring to the table in a political manner, not what religion they represent. With that said, I was listening to day to NPR on my way home from work - they clearly defined that religion will be a HUGE decider in the upcoming GOP caucuses as we have a variety of religions represented. Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.

Maybe about the same time people realize that the government does run NPR. Talk about a left liberal, tax dollar supported, "news" outlet. It's no secret that the right / GOP / conservatives would like to see tax dollar support of NPR defunded. NPR has an ax to grind. In this day and age, there is no need for a tax funded "news" machine.

 

[Higgs Boson]

Maybe about the same time people realize that the government does run NPR. Talk about a left liberal, tax dollar supported, "news" outlet. It's no secret that the right / GOP / conservatives would like to see tax dollar support of NPR defunded. NPR has an ax to grind. In this day and age, there is no need for a tax funded "news" machine.

So you have an issue with that but not with the Right Wing religious zealots running for the GOP who are pretty darn sure to bring their religious extremism to the White House?

 

[Jill]

So you have an issue with that but not with the Right Wing religious zealots running for the GOP who are pretty darn sure to bring their religious extremism to the White House?

Your source for my opinion would be?

 

[andi]

I think the assumption was you didn't have an issue with the "right wing zealots" because you shifted the focus to the opposite side instead of addressing the topic you were replying to.

Additionaly, higgs' comment was a question.

She was clearly asking if what she thought was your opinion, was correct.

 

[Jill]

Honestly, Andi-James, it wasn't "very clear" to me what Higgs was trying to say, and I'm not sure I follow what you're saying either...

 

[Jill]

The NPR was not such a BIG DEAL with some people 3 years ago.. now it is.. why?

The situation with Juan Williams was an eye opening factor.

I've never favored a tax dollar funded news outlet.

The fact that we are wasting too much tax dollars has fiscal conservatives looking for ways to reduce unnecessary spending.

 

[tagalong]

NPR may not have handled the Juan Williams thing well - and neither did he... but NPR is highly backed by corporate and public support and donations. Not all tax dollars.

There is no direct government funding of NPR. The only way tax dollars even get to NPR is via station fees - about 10%. So it is fair to state that NPR gets only 10% government funding/tax dollars.

For 2010, NPR accounted for 0.00018% of government expenditure.

The average American spends about 3 cents of his/her tax dollars a year on NPR.

Soooo... not much to fuss about there.

I had a great link with all the numbers etc. but it is not working well - I will find another one.

If it is not FOX, you will not listen to it anyway, Jill... so what does it matter?

 

[Jill]

NPR may not have handled the Juan Williams thing well - and neither did he... but NPR is highly backed by corporate and public support and donations. Not all tax dollars.

There is no direct government funding of NPR. The only way tax dollars even get to NPR is via station fees - about 10%. So it is fair to state that NPR gets only 10% government funding/tax dollars.

For 2010, NPR accounted for 0.00018% of government expenditure.

The average American spends about 3 cents of his/her tax dollars a year on NPR.

Soooo... not much to fuss about there.

I had a great link with all the numbers etc. but it is not working well - I will find another one.

If it is not FOX, you will not listen to it anyway, Jill... so what does it matter?

Any tax dollars for propping up NPR are too many tax dollars -- at least that's the opinion of this citizen, faithful voter and tax payer. Nearly half of Americans pay NO federal income tax, and 1 cent of tax dollars is more than I want to contribute to a news outlet. If tax payer funding is insignificant to NPR, why did NPR and the liberals freak out when they thought they might lose it?

Additionally, Tag, I'd frankly be very surprised if you read and listen to more sources of news each and every day than I do. While I enjoy FOX, it is just one of many news sources to which I regularly turn.

BTW, anyone want to PM me and fill me in on who Higgs Boson is on this forum, in addition to the current name tag?

 

[andi]

Where in higg's one sentence statement did you get lost exactly Jill? I don't mind standing up and saying that I don't think you didnt understand what higgs was saying, you just didnt want to answer. That is fine if you want to continue this habit you have formed of acting like anyone who disagrees with you is confusing you, insisting you are unable to deconstruct a sentence and understand it's meaning.

If that all sounds a bit harsh, I WAS offended by what you had posted before but edited out afterwords. You really didnt need to mention how much you enjoy our conversations, with or without the smiley wave, the sarcasm came through loud and clear.

 

[Jill]

Where in higg's one sentence statement did you get lost exactly Jill? I don't mind standing up and saying that I don't think you didnt understand what higgs was saying, you just didnt want to answer. That is fine if you want to continue this habit you have formed of acting like anyone who disagrees with you is confusing you, insisting you are unable to deconstruct a sentence and understand it's meaning.

If that all sounds a bit harsh, I WAS offended by what you had posted before but edited out afterwords. You really didnt need to mention how much you enjoy our conversations, with or without the smiley wave, the sarcasm came through loud and clear.

Andi-James -- When I edit my posts, it's because I want to clarify, expand or delete something. I never do so following a reply to one. Your opinion (or attempted policing) as to if I should do so, how I should word my posts, or what you think I should think just doesn't hit my list of concerns. When last you and I were an any kind of discussion, you melted down into name calling and for that reason, I don't really want to devote time to discussions with you again

 

[LindaL]

And...here we go...and btw...when did this become about radio??

I think I have been the only one on here sticking with the OP's subject...

 

[andi]

What ever do you mean Lyn, are you seeing a patern forming. LOL I really did think I was waiving some form of white flag starting my involvment by genuinelly agreeing, trying to leave the past in the past. O well.

Would any body be offended if me and Jill just start our own Never Ending topic: James and Jill, A (cautionary) Tale of two Know it Alls. LOL

All kidding aside I do agree that we all need to get really strict with ourselves about staying On topic. This thread has sooo many interesting well thought out different discusions going on. If we all really tried to just start a new one if we want to branch off that could really work great. You could even reply to this one for example, "Im glad you mentioned NPR, I'll go start a seperate topic." Even if we got flowded with lots of topics, if they didnt interest anyone they would just drop off.