to some great degree i must answer "yes"

even prior to the Scopes Monkey trial, the fundamentalist Christians have had an ongoing war with Darwin and all things related to evolution

in terms of attitude (and some actions), fundamentalist Christianity is essentially a mirror image of the Taliban

the foundation of fundamentalist Christianity if that of "faith"

and this is simply defined believing something without the need for supporting facts, evidence, etc.

as a consequence when these untested beliefs run contrary to facts, evidence, etc. there is a conflict

for example, it was Catholic Church fundamentalist faith/belief that the sun rotated around the earth. even though this was later disproved by science the Church refused to acknowledge the truth and went as far to even place scientist on trial and jail scientist

for a more recent example, i site you the 2008 Republican candidates debate. when they were asked about evolution, the Repub candidates raised their hands and expressed disbelief about evolution

obviously the answer is excessive trust

this is most true and relevant if one examines Christianity especially fundamentalist Christianity

as usual, your claims are near 100% misrepresentation of the facts

for example ... people are not demanding "free health care".

what has fallen upon your death ears (and brain) is that people don't want the continued gouging from big corporate insurance companies

it is not FREE health-care but pooling money together via taxes and using those resources to obtain health-care

the only groups i see that are really benefiting from government handouts are big corporate America. for example ... look at all of the no-bid contracts

attn Jessald:

so after falling all over yourself in praise of Our Dear Leader, do you realize that nothing he said will curb the rising premiums, deductibles, etc.

why can't we have universal healthcare or singlepayer or public options

who is gonna control these "exchanges" --- another corporate industry invention

attn RKMc ...:

it was simply a speech with a lotta flowery talk and rhetoric

no universal health-care, no single payer, no public option, real regulation for insurance companies, etc,...

all Obama wants is a health-care bill (doesn't matter if it good or bad or works or doesn't work) and he wants bipartisanship (defined as having at least one Republican voting for his bill)

i would've loved it if i were an insurance company executive

but, i'm just an ordinary person with skyrocketing healthcare premiums and co-pays

attn Palinin2040:

the double standard used by many anti-abortionist/pro-lifers makes me kinda blah about the so-called abortion debate [just give 'em education and contraception and watch the number of abortions drop]

they wail-n-moan about innocents murdered in the womb (something the government has nothing to do with in comparison to war) but turn a blind eye every time a bullet or bomb. that they paid for, kills murders an innocent Iraqi or Afghan child

why even bother discussing the thousands of Vietnamese killed in "free fire zones" and during "carpet bombing" raids

a young woman decides to "kill" her baby and the "lifers" don sack clothes and ashes.

your government kills and the "lifers" rally behind the flag and cry patriotism

thank goodness this rank hypocrisy is being well documented and will not be erased from history

nearly everyday of the week, the US government (your tax dollars) is killing innocent children in Iraq and that does NOT seem to be such an issue

yes - i agree that abstinence is 100% absolute protection but i still await your explanation of how you would enforce such a policy

without a doubt - yes, yes, yes

they show heterosexuals, they show single people (priests, widows, nuns, widowers, etc.) so why not homosexuals

FYI Jstantall

in 2004 Bush won re-election

the Republicans increased their Senate majority from 51 to 55 seats

the Republicans increased their Congressional majority from 229 to 231

the Republican party was not in a lame duck status and could have curbed Roe versus Wade

excuses, excuses, excuses ...

"Over the past decade, the US federal government has heavily promoted programs that advocate sexual abstinence as the key strategy for dealing with adolescent sexuality, but studies are demonstrating that the approach has little impact on teen sexual behavior or in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)"

it is 100%

but that is just the first step

how does one implement abstinence upon any society

how would you do it in America

would yah say "just say 'no' "

it is simple - innocent simply means free of blame, not guilty, not in the wrong, etc.

is Bush # 43 ancient history?

during his eight years, he had a Republican controlled Congress that was NOT in a lame duck status

even when it was so-called lame duck, are yah telling me that the Republicans would have voted against Bush administration abortion restrictions ?

they had the 50+% Congressinal majority and could have forced a Senate filibuster debate

but i suspect that the Republican leadership primarily give the anti-abortionist lip service

attn Jstantall:

so why did Bush change the law when he had a Republican Congress and receptive Federal judges ???

you can't blame this on limp Democrats or socialist liberals

attn Jstantall:

"If it is a human being then it requires a very high level of justification to take it's life. I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of an innocent human being."

are you concerned about only the innocent unborn embryo or all innocent life?

attn Jstabtall:

do you live in some kinda warped universe

"Abstinence is the only practice that provides 100% protection against STDs and pregnancy, nothing else comes close."

can you show me a culture or a time in human history where society has instituted functional, workable, effective abstinence policy

yes - your proposal works in an ideal world were everyone has exactly the same thoughts and actions but that world does NOT exist

interesting that in the eight years of Bush and the years of Republican controlled Congress and era of conservative judges that th 1973 Roe versus Wad has not been overturned

although they claim to be Christian fundamentalist, they too have a use for abortions ... it not just Democrats that go to Planned Parenthood and private doctors for pregnancy terminations

attn ThePyg:

interesting side-swipe yah took against Obama but the focus of this debate is about Glenn Beck

he has not made only mistakes; Beck has made intentional errors (i.e. lies)

he intentionally deceives in spite of facts, evidence and truths

but i admire your defense of the indefensible Glenn Beck. and since Beck is on his Hitler/Nazi kick, i'll also say that your defense of Beck would've fallen flat at Nuremberg

technically, "Americanism" is defined by the US Constitution and its derived laws

so, "un-Americanism" is whatever can be proven to be un-Constitutional

attn ThePyg:

why do yah say that Beck is "misinformed"?

Beck chooses the topic, researches the topic and presents the topic

so, who misinformed him? did he misinform himself? did FoxNews misinform him? do the liberals have some kinda mind control that caused Beck to be misinformed? is this some evil plot by Olberman?

be honest ... Beck is a liar and deceiver

"un-American" nowadays simply means any thought, speech or action that is contrary to your self-defined idea of Americanism

it is a floating, arbitrary definition

attn Wolfbite:

issue 1) unions are people and companies are not. companies should NOT have the same Constitutional rights as people

issue 2) the amount of corporate money given to politicians dwarfs that of unions

one of the nails in American's coffin occurred when the Supreme Court gave corporations the same (if not greater) rights as persons

Santa Clara County versus Southern Pacific Railroad Company ~ 1886

isn't it true that around 50% of all pregnancy's are not planned

isn't it true that the USA has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates

isn't is true that higher abortion rates are directly linked to the non-availability of contraception

so why do we have abstinence-only policy's that are proven not to work

this is a tiresome argument.

as long as people (women) are getting pregnant and people (women and men) don't wanna have that pregnancy, then we will have abortions regardless of laws, so-called morals, etc.

the answer is adequate 1) health/sex information and 2) improved availability to contraception since historically (stupid) efforts to control sex have failed

attn Jessald:

thank you for your post.

Glenn Beck has a long and well documented history of lies and distortions

he is kinda like our modern day Joe McCarthy

i agree that lobbyist rule but i just wish that when people make allegations at the minimun they should also site some supporting evidence

i make the counter argument that computers/Internet connect, thus improving family ties

example - troops in Iraq and Afghanistan stay better connect with their families

example - those homebound due to illness, disability are able to stay connected with far-away family members

amen !!!

you said it and i 100% agree with yah

too many people (not you) don't truly understand the concept of free speech.

they think that any speech or expression of speech that they deem in unacceptable and unpatriotic must be banned

attn ThePyg:

have you read the Supreme Court's ruling on why flag burning is acceptable?

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..." ~ Declaration of Independence, 1776

attn JoeCavalry:

your comment implies that there was a time when there was/were morals

could yah tell me when this time actually existed ???

i honestly doubt if the past was any more moral than the present

obviously not !!!

but you should have defined "modern society" and also the "soul of humanity" because i doubt if we are all working from the same interpretation

are yah saying "so" or "no"?

anyway, i wish you would've sited some evidence to support your claim

seems to me that a common thread of people who viscerally hate Obama are primarily but not exclusively white, fundamentalist Christian, middle to lower middle class mid-age to older adults

attn JoeCavalry:

interesting (some what childish) responses

isn't there a US soldier being held by opposition forces in Afghanistan

would you post the same kinda replies if he were water boarded ???

attn JoeCavalry:

you unwittingly answered your own question.

when military personnel are undergoing the SEARS training, they know that they will undergo limited water boarding exercises that is limited and non life threatening

this is totally different from those held by the US military who know that they will be subjected to many forms of torture (including water boarding) and can even be killed

yes - KILLED !!!

the US government has document the deaths of many held in US prisons and indicated that many could be labeled as homicides !!!

a history lesson for JoeCavalary ---

in 1947, the US government prosecuted Yukio Asano, a Japanese military officer, because he water-boarded a US prisoner

fromfferingCavalry:

here is the US legal definition of torture:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and ...

also, according to US law, torture is illegal

water-boarding is under the category of torture

thus, water-boarding is illegal

side note --- at the end Worldf World War II, the US government prosecuted the Japanes for water-boarding US prisoners

dearest JoeCavalry:

in comparison to other methods of interrogating suspects and gathering actionable information, we know for a historical fact that it, water-boarding, does NOT work

more importantly the evidence shows that water-boarding produces inaccurate information

attn Atypican:

good question

i direct you to Article I, Section II and you'll see that the taxing powers are vested to the Congress (Legislative branch of our government)

but i wish to add that the Congress has totally abdicated it's Constitutional responsibility

the solution to this and other problems is found within Declaration of Independence

attn Kukla...:

unfortunately, the initial reports indicate that the investigation will be limited

but, to date, we are unsure as to how aggressive the special prosecutor, Ed Durham, is gonna be (as opposed to Fitzgerald's limited investigation of the Plame leak)

but we can assume that Durham will uncover the paper trail that will lead to the Bush White House and that the low level scape-goats will rat-out the higher-ups

attn Frenchchieak:

good tip, good idea

i, too, will start looking at this kinda stuff

while this may be a good idea, it is contrary to what is spelled out in the US Constitution - the supreme law of the land

these are terror "SUSPECTS" !!! --- note the emphasis on the word "suspect"

until one is a "proven" terrorist and one is only "suspected" of being a terrorist, then "yes", one does have rights

attn Altarion

do you have any functional understanding of the US Constitution?

just because someone or some organization put forwards ideas that may be incorrect or even false, there is no just cause for censorship