For me, there are two totally different meanings for the term "religious". There are thse who believe in an abstract God, who represents goodness and order, and who brings together people in pursuit of peace and charity.

Then there are those who believe in a God who jealously adheres to the wording of books written millenia ago, and resents anything that calls their details into question.

I happen to be agnostic, but I think my beliefs are basically the same as the first group, differing only in that I do not see the point of personalizing that goodness and order under the name God.

The religious right in this country, unfortunately, appears to be controlled by the second group.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new pennies' tails side is so ugly. Put the Lincoln Memorial back at least.

That's part of what brought it to mind for me. I realize that this is tiny in budget terms, but I was looking at one of the new ones, wondering why our tax dollars were spent redesigning them.

BTW, the production cost isn't completely insignificant. Well over $100 million is spent every year minting small coins.

That's no longer penny-ante. It's another reason to be anti-penny!

Half a century ago a penny could actually buy a piece of candy and a couple could mail a post card. If people could live with no smaller coins then, we could certainly do without pennies or nickels now.

The half cent coin was last minted in 1857. A century ago a nickel was worth more than a dollar is now, so the half cent that had disappeared 50 years earlier would have been worth what a dime is now. it is ridiculous for us to have the nickel, let alone the penny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Retailers would be up in arms because they could no longer price things at $ plus, 99 cents. Psycholigically, people think only $3.99 is not a bad price but $4.00 makes them think twice. I think this idea has been floated several times and came down like a lead balloon.

Yes they could. Many countries in Europe don't use 1-cent of 5-cent pieces. At the register, if you pay by card, you're still charged the exact price (as if such coins existed) and if you pay in cash, then the price is rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 cent denomination.

Many businesses and many customers accomplish the same thing with a "Give a penny, take a penny" bowl. The Europeans are smart enough to stop wasting the space.

Anonymous wrote:Bush left Obama a country with a AAA rating and and economy in good enough condition that Obama felt he could waste an entire year on Obamacare. Obama is a terrible leader. nobody likes him does he even have any friends? NOBODY would follow this snakebit, uncoordinated, head bobbing between telepromters, LOOoooOOOoooOOOooOOser into battle.

That's like pushing someone off a roof and saying "He was fine when I saw him last. It must be that guy standing next to the body who's at fault; why doesn't he do something?"

Anonymous wrote:How about this one?

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Sorry, I don't know any jokes about McKinley but so few even know he was President. Can't remember the 4th Pres.

This big black (color of bus not "racism") bus also helped the Canadian economy.

James Madison. Truly one of the most important contributors to the creation of our government. His wife Dolly was also the first celebrity FLOTUS. I am sure there were jokes about them at the time, but I don't know any. However, here is a contemporary joke about Madison (sort of):

Bin Laden's Afterlife Surprise

After getting nailed by a Daisy Cutter, Osama made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington.

"How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Osama in the face. Patrick Henry comes up from behind: "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama on the nose. James Madison comes up next, and says, "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama's knee.

Osama is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe and 65 other 18th-century American revolutionaries. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.

As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams, "This is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies: "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"

(from http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokebinladenafterlife.htm)

I'm a liberal who is not happy with Obama but expects to vote for him. I would rather see Romney as his opponent even though I think his chances would be better against the others. At least the nation would not be at risk of theocratoc disaster with Romney running.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the OP, so I am not worried about "hate crimes". I don't understand what a hate crime even is. But if you can honestly look at that table, and tell me we don't need to have a frank discussion about african american crime (and incarceration rates) statistics, then I guess this conversation is over. Everything should be on the table - racism, disadvantages, oppression, police brutality, etc.

Add unemployment to that list.

One odd thing is that you can find it about Obama and Oprah or Obama and Michelle, but either way it always seems to be "the pilot of plane" -- I guess everyone is just cut and pasting.

BTW, 256 million was the population about the time Clinton was inaugurated, so I suppose it's a Billary joke.

Bachmann probably really believed John Wayne came from Waterloo rather than Winterset and that the Revolution began in NH rather than MA, but do you suppose she really thought that the vast increase in the number of employees at DOT making over $170,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/michele-bachmanns-too-good-to-be-true-stat-on-federal-workers/2011/08/15/gIQAZaqbHJ_blog.html) was either a meaningful statistic or was actually due to Obama rather than Bush, or do you think she consciously misled her listeners?

Anonymous wrote:I am not a biblical scholar - I focus on the gospels, and the historical accuracy there is good enough for me. Taking away the miracles, there was a Jesus, there was a Pontius Pilate, the Romans did practice crucifixion, there was a jewish temple, there were jewish cults rising up against the established order, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Book of Mormon, on the other hand, taking away the miracles leaves you with things that simply are not based in reality.

First off, I don't recall reading of any clear evidence of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible itself. But more to the point, there is certainly no other evidence of walking on water, rising from his grave, or being the Son of God. The fact that these stories were put in the context of reality as the writers knew it does prove their reality.

By the way, I note that you identified Christianity as Jewish cult, but find that more acceptable than the Christian cult of Latter Day Saints?

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely implausible that Reagan, a Republican Governor of California, would not support Nixon, a Republican Senator from California. I call BS on that as well.

It was, when NIxon ran against Kennedy in 1960, extremely implausible that Ronald Reagan, the actor and announcer for a TV western, would become governor of California in 1967. It was not until 1964 that actor George Murphy was elected Senator from California setting the precedent for Reagan.

Anonymous wrote:I don't support Perry so far, but not because he used to be a Dem. Reagan supported Kennedy over Nixon in 1960 if I recall correctly ....

He was a supporter of FDR, but I don't recall ever seeing that he supported Kennedy. Wikipedia says he supported Eisenhower and Nixon.

What a pompous bigot Starkey is. He seems unaware, despite its being pointed out by the others, that he keeps talking as though Britain is made up of us (educated, white) and them (blacks, troublemakers).

There is hardly a time when one of the others speaks without Starkey interrupting, but when he speaks, he has the gall to say "If you will just stop interrupting."

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:whether we are talking about a murderous cult spinoff, or the "mainstream" church, either way I certainly would judge. what about Warren Jeff's church - would you judge them? what about the scientologists? point is, of course it is appropriate to judge someone if they have dangerous and/or ridiculous beliefs.

Are their beliefs any more ridiculous than the belief that we are capable of comprehending a being that is so far beyond us that, by comparison, we are brothers to ants?

you hold onto your relativism all you want. all religions are not the same. some are dangerous and some are merely ridiculous. personally, I think more along the lines of the british colonial officer in India who, when being told to respect the Indian culture and learning of some of their traditions, responded "we shoot people who try to burn wives" ....

I did not say they were all the same, just that even the most mainstream religions have some ridiculous beliefs. But I do not dispute your point that there are wide variations in the actions of their adherents. But it is the actions I would judge, not the religions that are used as justification. I.e., despite my own disbelief in religion, I find it objectionable to judge a political candidate by his or her religion. However, I think it fair to judge those, like Bachmann, who want to impose their religion on our political system.