Makes sense.

Support Hillary '08 - "Keep her in so we can win!"

I hear you CynEater. I agree that the branches of our government are getting more and more powerful. Specifically, the Executive branch has gotten significantly more powerful in the last several terms.

I think the founding fathers knew that our government should be small. That's what makes (made) America different. The Constitution was written to restrict the Government, not the people. A lot of other governments are based on ruling over the people - not the people powering the government.

I think we (the citizens) are getting away from the framework of the Constitution and personal freedoms. We trade them away in exchange for a bigger Government. I mean, we elect these people.

Presidential candidates and members of Congress are making decisions based on their feelings and our culture. Worse yet, some are making decisions based on, as Cyneater put it, greed or financial gain. This has lead to unconstitutional rulings and policies in all branches that affect all citizens. And what's happening today? We are being over-regulated and over-taxed and we the public aren't really doing much about it. Voting to keep someone out of office isn't good enough. That's not ever going to change the status quo.

Wouldn't be great if the politicians based their decisions on an ancient text (or two)? Texts where we can see the framework that has been laid before us. That idea should sound very familiar to Christians. We've got a framework for life laid out before us. We've got a framework for politics laid out before us. Why do you settle for the lesser of two evils in life when there's something more pure out there? I think it's because we, the citizens, are lazy, selfish, and apathetic. I mean, American Idol contestants get more votes than our Presidents do (I wish we had a national voting week - but that's another post).

The framework of the Constitution was so good that a little group of separatists left the establishment, settled new lands, and because the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. That was because the people had freedoms and control. Our government was following the Constitution.

All that said, I don't think Governments fail because they get too big. Look at all the Monarchies and Dictatorships around the world. They seem to last a long time and they are pretty domineering to their people.

One thing all failed Governments have (besides those that were obliterated via invasion or war) is a devalued currency. We need a currency that is backed by some material to hold it's value. Else, we are going to print ourselves out of wealth like the USSR and Mexico. This is why I think the economy is the most important issue in this election. You can't fight wars and build bridges without a strong dollar. Fix the dollar and then we can talk about foreign policy.

We need to stop printing more money and cut government spending. What good is it to cut taxes but increase government spending? This causes the next generation to inherit more debt. We need to elect officials that have voted this way in the past and will continue to vote this way in the future.

What good does it do to print more money? America and Americans don't get wealthier when this happens. In fact, you end up earning less because the dollar you earn is worth less than it was before. You are effectively taking a pay cut. In addition, the cost of living is inflated. So, you end up paying more for an item that you did before. This is a hidden tax on all consumers and you get hit twice. Know that every time the Fed injects more money into the economy, you earn less money because they have deflated the value of all the other dollars in existence.

The people should power the economy - not Government. I think all of us expect the Government to fix the economy. They won't fix it until we make our votes count (or until the Government assumes socialistic levels of power).

I think one of the most important things rapture mentioned is rarely understood. The Constitution is not about the rights of the people. The Constitution does not grant any rights to US citizens.

The Constitution grants abilities and places restrictions on our government.

Every amendment is worded such that it restricts the government from doing specific things. Perhaps the most brilliant amendment, the 10th, states that if a function of the government isn't specified in the Constitution that it does not exist for the federal gov, but is reserved for the states or citizens themselves.

Read the Constitution. Here's some powers you won't find enumerated to the federal government:

-health care
-education
-retirement system (social security)
-regulation of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms
-ability to levy war without consent of congress (the people's elected body)
-train unemployed auto workers

Many of these powers have stemmed from the phrase "provide for the general welfare," which is enumerated in one of the first articles. I think the extent to which the gov is trying to affect the above items is far beyond "general welfare."

I don't even like people throwing around the phrase "right to vote". I think people ought to have to prove themselves intelligent and worthy enough to vote. That is one of the reason we elect such crappy representatives... because people don't know beans about the candidates or the issues and they just vote with the fad or trend... or because "I just like him". Stupid.

Support Hillary '08 - "Keep her in so we can win!"

Agreed, guys...I can't really add anything more other than Constitution FTW!

"Support Hillary '08"

That's a popular theme among talk radio hosts. If Hillary or Obama are going to be our next President, talk show hosts and authors are going to make a ton of money. Talk radio is most popular when a Democrat is in power. This is because people like to hear Rush and Hannity rip into the President.

Promoting Hillary or Obama on the radio is good business for talk radio. Rush, Hannity, and Coulter know what they are doing. They are about to get a big pay day.

Midnight you aren't even getting the libertarian talking point right. As "general welfare" means not specific to one state or group or region, you should instead argue that "general welfare" is not a separate power but limited to only the enumerated powers in Article I; and then, you probably should quote James Madison. Just my suggestion.

You misunderstand the reasoning behind that catch phrase.

Rush was promoting the idea of donating money to Hillary to help her win the nomination of her party because he believes she would be an easier opponent for McCain to defeat. By no means does Rush or Sean (can't speak for Coulter, I don't listen to her and I don't like her) want Hillary to win in '08. They both want her to get nominated so at least a less liberal candidate, McCain, will win. Hence the "we can win" part in the phrase...

The media has misconstrued, as always, what Rush has said on his program to make it sound like he actually wants Hillary or Obama to win so that his program will rise in ratings. Those same members of the "drive by media" has also said that talk radio is "doomed" if Hillary or Obama wins. But as Rush always says: "My success does not depend on who wins elections." Rush will be successful whoever is in office because he offers entertaining conservative commentary on the news, and people like me love to listen to it.

Support Hillary '08 - "Keep her in so we can win!"

JayWhy,
I wasn't aware that is a libertarian talking point. I formed that opinion after my most recent reading of the Constitution about 3 weeks ago. I don't desire to latch onto all the standard arguments of a specific group and regurgitate them at will. Those are actually my own opinions. Whether "general welfare" refers to powers strictly enumerated or implies powers not strictly enumerated, my opinion stands that the government has surpassed it.

What are your thoughts on the extent of government today in the context of the Constitution?

Well said.
--
J$D

You're absolutely right; we should only allow white, land-owning males to vote!

You may mock that idea, but that idea was not totally bad in my view. Take the "white" part out of the equation and you are close to what I am thinking of. It is ridiculous that people who have no clue how their government is made up, let alone the issues currently at hand, are allowed to vote. I think if you took your average American Idol watcher, while perhaps not most, many of them don't know how are government is made up. Ignorance about our country's state is what has us where we are today. If people can't pass a simple test indicating that they know how our government works, then I don't think they should be voting.

Support Hillary '08 - "Keep her in so we can win!"

People who don't give two scheisse's about our government aren't voting anyway...

...I'm not so sure about that.

Support Hillary '08 - "Keep her in so we can win!"

The radio business is about ad revenue which is largely dependent upon listeners. Talk radio is largely about what our elected officials are doing in opposition to the host of the show. Rush and Hannity's shows will be even more popular with more Democratic leaders. Since success is largely defined by income and revenue, Rush and Hannity will be more successful at less in the eyes of Cumulus. Coulter, who said she'd rather vote for Hillary, will sell more books.

I'm sure Cumulus doesn't think they have enough money. Their shareholders, too.

Sort of off-topic, but: How do radio stations know the number of listeners they have? It's not like they can track who tunes into a radio station...

Statistic sampling through use of volunteers who keep diaries of what they listen to each day. TV ratings are done the same way. Christina participated in a TV ratings sample one time. They provided her a book with time slots and she recorded what she watched on TV for a period of two weeks, IIRC.

First of all, I do not like Ann Coulter. I think she is annoying to listen to and way too outspoken at times. I agree with most of her views, but the way she presents them turn me off. Now that you mention it, I have heard her say she would campaign for Hillary if McCain was nominated. I think that is stupid. She is just an annoying woman, period.

Oh, and just for the record... Laura Ingram pwns Ann Coulter.

All I know is that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Neil Boortz, and Mark Levin, all of whom make up the biggest names in talk radio, whom I listen to fairly regularly... none of these people are pushing this "common theme" on their shows. All of them are going all out to defeat Hillary and Obama. I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe all of these people are going to vote for McCain when it comes to the general election.

In short, I don't think this "common theme" is very common at all, at least not among the names I have listed. Regardless of what the media has reported.

Support Hillary '08 - "Keep her in so we can win!"

After seeing McCain win in many closed primaries, I have to wonder if the mainstream media is correct that conservative talk radio doesn't translate into voter action. Every one of the people you listed blasted McCain from the very start, and he's still getting the nomination.

After listening to Laura Ingram act like a rude, illogical moron (albeit a rude, illogical, Christian moron) when she interviewed a representative of a group that helps people save their marriages, I find it hard to take her seriously. She also often pulls this move:

Ingram: I saw a chuckar partridge in Huntsville today.
Caller: Chuckar partridges don't live in Alabama.
Ingram: [tone: frustrated because the called is such a dummy, not because she misspoke] Well, obviously, you know what I meant.

I also don't like listening to Levin scream at me.

I don't think the reason people are voting that way is because of talk radio. I think the fear of Hillary was so great amongst conservatives that they voted for McCain solely for his electability. Frankly, I can't blame them much... if it wasn't for the fact that I think McCain's only difference from Hillary is his stance on the war on terrorism, I would have done the same.

I still voted for Fred Thompson even though he had dropped out simply because I was kinda mad about it and still feel he was the best candidate, even though I was disappointed at his lack of fire.

I like Mark Levin. When he yells about stuff it usually doesn't bother me because he is usually mad for a good reason. In fact I think its pretty funny and probably pisses libs off. There have been times when I have been annoyed though.

I definitely agree that Laura Ingram can be a little over the top. In fact, what you are speaking of is very similar to the way Ann Coulter is 24/7. I don't find Laura to be that way all the time. She is definitely, IMO, the best female talk radio host out there.

I find Sean to be a little whiny at times, but I think he his a genuine Christian, and I like what he has to say most of the time.

Rush is king though, period. I can take or leave the others, but I gotta have my Rush fix during the day. :)

dido that,ma brotha
Rush>Mark>Neal>Sean>Laura....>the new lady at 5 o'clock

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

At least the new lady at 5 PM is local. I don't really like her either, but I do like being informed on the details of local topics, which only Dale Jackson and her address.

To be honest, I don't get anything from Levin that I wouldn't get from Rush or Hannity, so his absence is fairly moot. I regret that I rarely get to listen to Rush.

BTW, during my trip to Utah I briefly listened to the first radio station morning show I came to. It was a liberal talk radio show. I decided I'd listen to see what kind of topics they discussed. About the most substantial, absolute thing they said during the 30 minutes I listened was

"I don't care what you say. If you want all of these ultra-strict immigration policies it's not because you want immigrants to pay their fair share, or because you think they're taking American jobs, it's because you don't like Mexicans and you're scared of them."

I guess there's no arguing with that, if he doesn't care what anyone says. No easier way to win a debate than to refuse to participate in one, huh.

I've listened to Rush for nearly 14 years. I've learned that he takes 5-minutes of talking points and stretches them into a month's worth of radio. He's basically a broke record. I'll listen for a few minutes each week to see if at least he's changed the record. Sometimes he has. But then he's back to stretching 5-minutes of talking points into a month's worth of radio. I feel like I'm wasting my time. He doesn't inform me.

what i like most about Levin,is the fact that he actually gets pissed off(/passionate) about all the BS goin on. VS all the other shows,they are just kinda "whatever" about it,or just ignore it.Example: bush's useless "stimulus package" or bush's stance on ILLEGALS/border.i swear they just totaly overlook THESE issues.

Rush seems more professional than levin.but i enjoy them both VERY much.sean,not so much.but i do agree with him more times than not.

As for your 14 yrs of "listening",i disagree with your assessment. All rush does is analyze news,day by day.sometimes more.so basically the "brok record" may be the beloved news outlets.or even further,you could say nothing new is going on?..

BTW I forgot to mention,Mr. Michael Savage.I know andy doesn't really care for him,but he may be mt favorite talk host.I just never get to hear him unless we're traveling : /.he is solid though.

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

scratch my stimulus package comment.rush just called it stupid.

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

I've always thought that Rush was just entertainment. Not actual news reporting. In fact, I think he himself even calls it that. I think he's entertaining, pretty funny, and pretty much just echoing back what his listeners mostly already believe.

Talk radio is political commentary, not news. Rush is conservative political commentary, not a news reporter. If you are listening to him to get the latest news then your barking up the wrong tree. Now, sometimes Rush or Sean do break news stories... but that is rare. Yes he is entertaining, and that is why people listen... in addition he is always right %98.7 percent of the time. :) Obviously most of his listeners already believe the stuff he is saying because most of his listeners are conservatives.

Its ridiculous to say that he takes five minutes of talking points and stretches them over a month, though. He talks about current news that he is interested in talking about. Heck, he very often runs out of time in his show to talk about all the crap. Plus he has callers who change the subject a lot. If Rush sounds like a broken record, which I don't believe he does, it is because he talks about issues at hand and many of them last a good while, so obviously he is going to talk about it many times. And unless he changes his position on the issue, which he doesn't, then he is going to say the same thing about it. If you disagree with his politics then obviously you aren't going to enjoy that, though.

Lies, damned lies, and talk radio. It is sad to think you guys actually form opinion from what you here on talk radio.

As I said, I don't get to listen to Rush very much, but I will vouch that Levin is a broken record. Every workday during the month of January at 5:10 PM you could find me driving east on Governor's Drive, wondering if Levin would stop ranting about Huckabee and McCain. McCain: his collaboration with liberals on immigration and opposition to Bush's tax cuts. Huckabee: allowing the children of illegal immigrants to receive state scholarships and raising taxes. His nicknames for the candidates were also childish at best.

I don't even like Huckabee, but Levin didn't represent him honestly. He constantly presented the issue as "in-state tuition for illegals," which isn't true. He supported allowing the children of citizens and illegals (anybody) to receive academic scholarships if they were awarded them based on merit. I think the min ACT score to be considered was 27. One might argue this country needs all the 27+ ACT scorers it can get...children of illegals or not. His tax hike for roads was also voted on and passed by the people of Arkansas in a general election. Once again, I don't like Huckabee, and the fact I presented this info doesn't mean I come down on either side of the issue, but you never heard those facts from Levin.
-

Thanks for that substantive and carefully thought out input...

@Midnight on the influence of Rush: the Republican Congress a few terms ago voted to make him an honorary member of Congress. Even our elected officials agree that he is largely influential – so much so that they believe he got a lot of them elected.

On Rush as a news reporter: By offering his opinion on the news, Rush is essentially reporting the news. So, to millions of listeners (the current Republican Establishment) he is a news reporter. Millions of conservatives consider themselves politically informed when really they are only informed of the opinion of Rush that he offers up as entertainment. Their political worldview is greatly influenced by the words that Rush says.

Being a ditto head isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Rush is an aggregator of NeoCon talking points. If you are a responsible subscriber and you trust the messenger, then you may be just fine outsourcing your political awareness to him. However, if there is no quality control, then we could very well have a zombie nation on our hands --- a public who only knows one side of the story.

To me, I think Rush is creative and a masterful entertainer. But, even though I agree with a lot of his political views his sarcasm has gotten boring over time. I have found that I would rather invest my time doing other things.

I used to listen to Savage Nation, hubcap. I liked his show, too.

Good points Slaya,Mid,Rap,Oc.

@ MID. that is true,i'm not sure why they're all over hucks nuts.as for Lavin's bashing of Mccain,i couldn't agree more.still,I love his show none the less

@ Rap. as for these "zombies".i'll be totaly honest,and admit that i've become aware of those very things,even cought myself just goin "with it"(according to talk radio).We do need to be careful.
i don't fully agree that only one side of the story is being voiced via talk radio.but you may have a lil something.

I've never cared about what's goin on in our GREAT,yet faultering country until like 2-3 yrs ago(at most).only months ago have I started forming my own oppinion..
As Neal Boortz says(roughly). Don't just take my word for it,go research it yourself!

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

Jay, Talk radio listeners listen to it because it reflects *most* of their views, not to form an opinion off of what they hear. It's the reverse of what you're saying. Trust me, when talk radio hosts say something that their listeners don't approve of, they get flooded with calls. Take for instance our new local host here in town. She's got her work cut out for her. Rush didn't invent conservatism, nor does he claim to.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

oc,+1...make it +10

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

My ranking: Rush Limbaugh>Sean Hannity>Mark Levin>Neal Boortz>Laura Ingram>Ann Coulter>poop>Pamela Furr :)

BTW, Rush always talks about how the drive bys and liberals claim that we, the listeners, are simply mind numbed robots following whatever Rush says. He tells them to form their own opinions based on conservatism, not his opinions. I just don't believe it is even true. I think Rush's listeners are among some of the most intelligent in the country, and they form their own opinions based on their own worldviews, not Rush's. Anyone who forms their entire worldview based on the opinions of a talk radio host, or any kind of host, have serious issues.

Yesterday Pamela Furr's show was about as unintelligent as anything I've heard on WVNN...and I listen to Dale Jackson :) .

She was discussing the commentator that described Chelsea Clinton as being "pimped out" by her mother, and was subsequently suspended. Two things she said really showed she has no place in political talk radio:

1. "What has happened to free speech?"

If the feds had shown up and taken the commentator to jail--that's abridgment of free speech. Being fired for saying something controversial--that's the game we all play when we're on the payroll of a privately owned and managed company. We all get to make decisions about who we hire and fire. Firing/suspending the commentator for saying that doesn't infringe on his right to free speech; it infringes on his privilege of being on the payroll of MSNBC. None of us are entitled to our jobs. I wouldn't have personally suspended him, but as his employer MSNBC has every right to suspend or fire him. Pamela Furr (is that the correct spelling, Furr?) obviously doesn't understand the distinction between being guaranteed freedom of speech and being guaranteed an audience for your speech and a job to boot.

2. In response to a caller that said he would have punched the commentator had he said the same remark about the caller's daughter: "Well, that's your right."

No, it's not his right to assault someone for saying something he finds offensive. That's his choice. He may make that choice despite the consequences, but you can't say (even flippantly) that one person has the right to assault another based on offensive remarks. One day one of you may have to bail me out of jail if I ever meet one of those despicable funeral protesters with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs" but I won't claim it was my right to pry off his testicles with a rusty fork, just my choice.

I stopped listening to Rush a long time ago. He's so annoying to listen to, imo. Like rap said, 15 minutes of talking points stretched out into a month. I personally don't like listening to talk radio. It's usually just one or two arrogant loudmouths trying to distinguish themselves from the pack by any means necessary so they can keep their jobs- taking what you hear on talk radio with any host needs to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter what their politics are, liberal or conservative.

Just to drop my two cents on Ann Coulter....bleck. Anytime I hear anything she has to say I wish I hadn't listened at all. She disgusts me.

Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly for the LOSS. I detest both of those jackasses.

Oculus is right. We usually listen to a talk radio show because we already know they are going to at least reflect most of our views. I never met someone who formed their opinions from talk radio....ick.

Funny video about Mainstream Media: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/68661/
worksafe.

To be fair, on her first show she said that she doesn't want to discuss politics as Dale Jackson (yuck) does a good job to talking about politics as does other outlets. She said that she wants to just talk on the radio about whatever the callers want to discuss. She showed a bit of political ignorance on the first night as she didn't know that McCain was going after Romney for his stance of "timetables" (which was a dirty tactic by McCain). However, I gave her some credibility when she admitted on air that she wasn't knowledgeable on the issue and asked the caller to tell her about it.

She defended Amy Winehouse against some words that some R&B singer said about Winehouse last night. I thought that was good.

However, she did say a few things that seemed silly. Like your #2 point, I think she's gotten some of her terminology wrong.

Still, it's better than being screamed at by Levin.

I'd rather get screamed at by someone who's passionate about MOST of my beliefs,then listen to HER bable.

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

True, she mentioned something yesterday about "not wanting to discuss the politics of the day." However, then she went right into the Clinton thing.

I am open to a non-political program in the afternoon, but I haven't heard much intelligent discourse from her. I'll give her another chance or two before making a decision. I don't care for pop culture babble, so if that's her focus then I may go back to 95.1 for my drive home. At least The Black Crowes, Ozzy, and Three Doors Down are somewhat entertaining, even if 95.1 plays them in a loop.

They used to have a guy named Will Anderson in her slot... I think he was great. He could do political or not, but he mostly did political. But he was just cool.

I guess I just like people like Levin who get worked up about stuff, like Will said, I agree with. Take Neil Boortz, he's loud, he's purposefully inflammatory, and I love it, when I agree with him. When I don't agree with him, he pisses me off. But for the most part he is pretty good. But that is why when Mark Levin is yelling, I like it, cause I totally agree and feel like yelling too.

It's Levin's voice that makes his yelling so intolerable. Take for instance the actor that played General Patton in the movie "Patton." I could listen to that guy yell all day long. Levin is nasally, almost whining.

Ah yes, George C. Scott is da balls! I agree, if Levin had his voice he could say anything as loud as he wanted. :)

indeed,I miss Will Anderson aswell.He would also get pretty deep into local politics.

I NEVER,EVER thought i'd say this.but SO FAR,I like Tim knox,more that Pamela Furr...

lol I hear you Midnight,there was a time when listening to Levin repulsed me,SOULY because of his voice.but i've learned to look past that.His little annoying voice just tellin it like it is(most of the time),is part of what makes me laugh so much during his show.

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

If your going to give me non-political talk, you better make it damn funny, and I don't mean slightly funny, you better bring the Rick and Bubba.

Otherwise, I might as well change the channel to NPR.

Furr is not funny, not political, .. then what the hell is she? If we want to listen to a girl talk all afternoon about random things on the way home from work, we'll call our wives. Otherwise give me funny, political, tech, science, or music commentary. Theme your show for craps sake. Or at least segment your show into tangible themes.

OMGROFLMFAO

Well,seeing as I don't have a wife.I suppose i can put her show to use after all

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

Rick and Bubba FTW!

R&B for the loss!

To be clear, I listen to Pamela because she's near my age and I want to know what someone my age is saying on the radio. But I'm not as interested in what she says as I am her ability to survive in that time slot. That time slot must be a tough time slot to have to compete with Paul Finebaum. Several others have failed in the last few years.

Finebaum is pretty boring this time of year, so it's really between WVNN and NPR on WLRH.

Rick and Bubba are 1337.

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

I thought Rick and Bubba were no more after the accident?

R&B were dropped from 95.1 the Rocket and picked up on "The River" I believe. Then the accident happened afterwards.

If someone doesn't know what he means by the accident, Rick's son passed away recently by drowning.

They are still on the air.

----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"

BTW, Sean Hannity talked about that accident on his show. He said that he was very moved by Rick's attitude toward the horrible incident. What he said really improved my view of Sean.

So Rick didn't quit afterwards? And what station is the River?

Ricka and Bubba are on 100.3 now. Also, if you havent listened to ricks speech from his sons funeral service you should. I believe it is still up on their website.

that takes some SERIOUS,serious faith.I can't even imagine what i would be like lossing a son.probably angry and bitter,idk.Don't ever want to know.in Rick's case,he lost his "little buddy".just goes to show what kind of peace the Lord can,and will give to His children..

BTW,"Rick and Bubba" dropped "The Rocket",not the other way around.My understanding is that,"Rick and Bubba" were bought-out by Clear Channel Stations."The River" is a part of the Clear Channel network.

@ Mintz. 100.3 FM

Thanks, I didn't know the circumstances behind the station switch. I stand corrected, *They* left the Rocket.

@Mintz, yep Rick is still on the air.

You know, Midnight. I don't know you, I've never spoken to you, so I have no dog in this hunt. All I can tell you is this. When I said "what happened to free speech" I was referring to Hillary Clinton's reaction. She's running for President and she's upset that someone made a not-so-derrogatory statement about her daughter?

I don't know if you still listen. I hope you do. I've been reading some of these other comments and I don't think it's a fair representation of the show. FROM POLITICS TO SEX AND THE CITY...AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN, that's the Pamela Furr Show on News Talk 770 AM / 92.5 FM WVNN

Holy crap! She's found our forum! Why does this always happen? What are the odds?!?!

------------------------
"Don't blow this, Gene!"

Ms. Furr, I do still listen on most afternoons. I enjoy trying to find logical/factual holes in the arguments of you and your guests. It's kind of like an auditory sudoku puzzle. I thought it was particularly incorrect a few days ago when you claimed that "Jesus hated government." That's a direct quote, although you might have used "despised" instead of "hated." While I agree with you that Jesus was not a progressive liberal (your point about government compulsory social programs being different than social programs conducted by the church was spot on) the fact is that Jesus did not dislike government. Jesus said very little about government. The two references I know off hand are "rend under to Caesar what is Caesar's" and when he [paraphrased] told Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (ie I'm not trying to set up a government. Don't worry about that.) Jesus was actually very silent on the issue of government. But the fact is that you said, in the midst of an argument where you were asserting a valid point, that "Jesus hated government." That is not true.

When called out on it on the WVNN forum you replied:

Thanks for proving my point. Unfortunately, the commenter accused you of the exact same thing of which I am accusing you. The commenter said

You then incorrectly assumed that the commenter was arguing that Jesus was "pro-government," (a progressive liberal) and argued that point again. Once again, you are correct on your position about that point (Jesus did not preach government compulsory feeding of the hungry). However, you used false information to support your point and then did not understand the argument levied against you when called on it on the WVNN forum.

You can't just claim "That's not what I meant," or "you're taking that out of context" every time you say something incorrect. Words have meanings. Don't expect to throw them around flippantly and not have men and women of logic call you on it.

@Midight:

I don't think we can say that Jesus was anti- or pro-Government. But he was all about personal liberties and individual rights. We have very little text recording Jesus’ dealings with ruling Governments. We know that he advocated paying taxes. We know he hung out with tax collectors and asked them to not take more than they needed.

We have a lot of insight to his thoughts on religion and legalism (which, unfortunately, today can tell us a bit about government). He did things that were against religious tradition and laws.

Jesus definitely was a non-interventionalist and non-isolationist. He didn’t force people to follow him. He didn’t force his way into people’s homes. He didn’t force his message onto whole villages or towns if they didn’t accept him. He let the individual choose what to do. He was a social libertarian. He was extremely tolerant of other people’s lifestyles and did not label them into social groups. He asked the people to help others, not the government or religious laws. He never suggested that government and laws/rules would build his kingdom. He asked the people to power the society by doing whatever needed to be done ("feed the hungry", "love your neighbor", "that which you do unto the least of these..."). He was pro-individual and didn’t advocate a governing nanny state.

Now Robin Hood? Robin Hood despised the Government.

BTW: Today is the day I stopped listening to Dale Jackson. I'm switching over to WLRH and podcasts in the mornings.

This happens because I do not operate WVNN's website.

@rap, agree 100%

You're obviously stating YOUR political views and characterizing it as if they came from Jesus. No rational argument can be carried against the political party of Jesus.

@JayWhy: Good, then it should be easy for you to prove us wrong. Go...

Apparently the odds are pretty good:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pamela+furr&hl=en&start=20&sa=N

I knew there was a high chance when we start throwing around local keywords. It always happens. Actually, I'm glad she read it, maybe it'll help her out to hear a bit of constructive criticism. Nobody likes to see someone lose their job if the public is not listening to the show. Pamela, maybe you took it to heart, I actually listened to your show all the way home a couple days ago, that's a first for me.

And Dale, (Dale Jackson of WVNN 92.5 770), when you read this after following a link from a "Dale Jackson" google search, I'd like to say: Please mature up a little bit. I don't like Neil Bortz's abrasive and annoying personality, please stop trying to imitate him. We get it, your not a "News Reporter". But that doesn't mean you have to be condescending towards your listening audience.

I can't prove you wrong. At that was exactly my point. This is the intrinsic problem with mixing religion and politics. Religion is a belief system, belief in strong held convictions beyond evidence or proof. Politics is a science of governmental policy. The core ideas of both are antithetical to each other. And history has shown that both politics destroys religion, and religion destroys politics.

Weren't those taxes being paid to an occupying force from the Roman empire. Maybe we can garnish other political truth from this as well. I guess it is OK to occupy other countries and tax them.

Jesus paid his taxes, but paying taxes is not advocating them or advocating occupation. Instead he said of this:

As the non-Christian here, I find it surprising that I'm the one who finds talk of Jesus; and what his potential political stance might be, belittles him and his message. It is just utterly absurd, in my opinion, to garnish political truth from Jesus's religious message.

You know, the Romans mocked Jesus for being a false King. Ask yourself, are you not doing the same?

I partly agree with your last comment.except for the fact that we can "garnish political truth from Jesus's religious message".He came not only to die for ALL of our sins,but to lead the prefect example.Through His life,and teachings.

Uh, Jesus didn’t like religion. I think you have a bone to pick with religion. Which is probably why you’ve said negative things toward “Christianity” in the past. I feel that.

Let me clear something up. I probably should have said that Jesus didn’t say to NOT pay your taxes.

As I said earlier, we can’t say that Jesus was anti-gov or pro-gov. We don’t have enough manuscripts. That one verse tells us very little. However, we can draw conclusions from his teachings. His teachings are meant to influence a person. And a person runs the government. Therefore, his teachings can influence political (and thus all) decisions that a person makes.

Fact 1: We don’t have enough documents to make a decision on what political party Jesus would support today. You and I agree. (That’s probably a good thing because we’d have fascists waving a flag and a cross in our Government; or running for a GoP nomination [cheap shot] :).

Fact 2: The Bible shows that Jesus supported individuals and didn’t bring about change through Government or Church.

Let's look at what Jesus did to bring major change to the landscape of life in the places he lived.

Jesus didn’t act from the top down. He enacted change from the ground up. He brought about a revolution and started at the individual level and let it grow upwards. Lots of Biblical and non-Biblical text supports that.

His teachings were definitely slanted toward the individual; not religion; not religious leaders; not toward the government.

Maybe “lifestyle agnostic” would be a better term for you than social libertarian? You may disagree with my terminology. But don’t let that cloud up what Jesus did. Better yet, don’t let it discount what Jesus did.

By social libertarianism, I mean that Jesus was tolerant of all lifestyles (the society) while being pro-individual expression (liberties). He didn’t treat a homosexual, a whore, or a soldier any different thatn someone you or someone else may consider “righteous”. In fact, he made it a point to be near them (which most "Christians" don't do today [cheap shot #2] ).

Jesus did recognize a poor class and a wealthy class. But he didn’t advocate the changing of class. He advocated the equal judgment of everyone. He didn’t judge people based on their socio-economic status.

He didn’t tell people how they should run their lives. He always stressed that they had freedoms and liberties and said that the time for Mosaic law has passed. The choice of faith and how to live was never made for them. People always had the option and power to decide. He was very much against legalism and using man-made rules to run people’s lives.

Jesus asked his followers to take care of the hungry, the poor, and those that are lesser of them. It was the people of his church that he wanted to take care of others and spread his ideas. He asked them to go out and care for people in the area that are in need. He didn’t advocate religious leaders, let alone governmental leaders, providing for society. He didn’t expect them to do it. He asked the people to do it.

He could have brought about change through the Roman government if he wanted to. They wanted him to work for them.

He could have brought about change through the Pharisees. They wanted him under control. But he didn't.

He was very much against the Pharisaical religious establishment. He didn’t want people to follow him based on a set of rules. He denounced old testament laws and practices.

He wasn’t an isolationist. He was open to all kinds of lifestyles in all townships. He asked his followers to go out and spread his message to everyone and anyone. He engaged the culture and accepted it. He reached out to the surrounding cultures and lived with the people in those cultures. He didn’t go right to the top of those cultures (the Church or the Government). He went to the people.

He was a non-interventionalist. He didn’t force his ideas onto a town or a home. He let the people decide. If they rejected him, he moved on. He didn’t intervene into political dealings. In fact, the “Render unto Caesar” statement shows that he was avoiding intervention into the affairs of both the Romans and the Jews. He could have given more instruction on what the Jews and/or Romans should do. The Romans recognized Jesus as a Jewish leader. If he wanted to, he could have acted for the Romans and pushed their agendas. He did not.

We can say that Jesus was pro-individual. There’s no way around it. He empowered the person, not the religion establishment or the political establishment. He built his movement from the ground up. He didn’t use the Church. He didn’t use the Government.

So, what conclusions can we draw?

Instead of trying to associate Jesus with a political party, perhaps we should evaluate a political leader, based on their principals and actions and compare them to what Jesus stood for?

Should you look at the life of Jesus to determine how to run your political party? I don’t know? Can you look at the life of Jesus to learn how to bring about change based on the individual? I think you can?

Jesus set an example. He valued the individual and respected their right to choose. He didn’t use the Church or the Government to achieve his mission.

I think there’s something to be said there.

Politics don’t mix well with many things in life; especially religious and spiritual beliefs.

Does the life of Jesus tell you have to run a small country? Probably not. But, I think his life can give insight into how an individual can live and individuals power the Government.

Now, Peter? Peter would probably be a socialist or communist. He advocated distributing wealth evenly. He went on to become the first Pope of the Catholic church.

I agree with jayWHY in one respect, and I think he has a good point.

I find it a little disturbing to talk about Jesus as if he is simply a political or religious "teacher" that we can garnish wisdom from or get ideas on how we should live. This hugely marginalizes and belittles what Jesus is, in my mind, and what He stands for.

Jesus was not simply a teacher, prophet, "good man" or leader of a political revolution... He was and IS God the Son. He is my Savior, and the ultimate Ruler of all creation. He IS Christianity.He is the Alpha and Omega, first and last! He was and is and is to come... forever! He is God!

Furthermore, He has given us the ultimate document by which we can understand His creation... His Word. If you want to know where Jesus stood... er, stands on government, just look and see what the Biblical view on government is... what does the Bible say about government... its simple as that. For example:

I think Jesus absolutely has told us how we should run our lives, and has done so in His Holy Word which is inspired by Him and is inerrant.

He Has not only told us how we should live... but He has DEMANDED perfection from us. Unfortunately, none of us are perfect, we have all fallen short, we are all rebellious creatures in His sight and each and every one of us DESERVES to die and spend eternity in Hell. Fortunately, God, by His infinite mercy, love and grace, sent His Son. So, since Jesus was not merely a man, but 100% man and 100% God, He was able to live a life of perfection, without sin, even though He was tempted just as we are. He died and paid that debt of perfection for us, so that those who are saved by God's grace, not of works or anything else, but grace, are now seen as blameless in His sight.

Jesus was and is God. He is the ultimate government. He is Christianity. He believes in government, He believes in a perfect kingdom ruled by Him and Him alone forever and ever.
------------------------
"Don't blow this, Gene!"

Furthermore,Romans 13:2-14 NIV- 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love, for the Day is Near
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.[c]

I didn't have time to read all of your post Rap(yet).This adresses some of your points i read.

Wow, I think in an verbal Internet argument between EA and Jesus, EA would win. He sounds like he knows more about Jesus than Jesus does.
--
J$D

JayWhy, I did misunderstand what you meant by "no rational argument..." I thought you had a foregone conclusion and were saying it was self-evident. I now see that you are saying no logical conclusion can be drawn (correct me if I'm wrong). My apologies.

The direction the thread has taken is not something I was really interested in discussing, but I'll chime in on a couple things:

1. I don't think it belittles Jesus to discuss his teachings in any context. Perhaps if I never discussed anything BUT Jesus's opinion on Sea World then I would be belittling him as a whole (over the course of my life), but I think it's nonsensical to say that asking ourselves "What did Jesus think about [insert absolutely anything here]?" is sometimes a bad idea.

2. It may be impossible to ever concretely say that Jesus advocated the ideas of any particular modern political party, but let's not throw out all of logic just because we can't find the perfect indisputable answer. We can sometimes prove things through contradiction. Example:

Hypothesis: Jesus advocated never paying taxes.

Evidence: "Render unto..."

Conclusion: Reject the hypothesis.

Is our conclusion "Jesus advocated paying high taxes?" No. We can't say that. All we can say is that "Jesus advocated paying taxes due to the government." I'm sure this is common sense to most of you, but I think it warrants a little digression because the idea that we cannot discern much of anything about Jesus' ideas as they relate to political policy is false.

We don't have to have the perfect answer or 100% of the evidence to examine part of the answer or part of the evidence. We can't use partial evidence to draw absolute conclusions, but we can draw a few broad conclusions through contradiction.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with asking these questions about Jesus. There is nothing "absurd" about asking these questions... after all, your religion, or as I like to call it "worldview", should effect every aspect of your life, including politics. Jesus being the the head of Christianity, it is only natural to wonder what He might say on the subject.

What I find to be disconcerting is that the answers do not factor in His deity, not even as an afterthought. He is being talked about as if He is nothing more than a "religious leader" or "revolutionary figure", kinda like Muhammad ...rather than what He truly is, our Lord and Savior. I find that somewhat shocking, coming from Christians, and frankly irreverent.

Furthermore, the Bible has much to say about government, because the Bible itself is inspired by God (aka. Jesus), and is the perfect Word of God. The entire Bible... not just the parts in red.
------------------------
"Don't blow this, Gene!"

Setting: 100 years from now.

Person 1: "What kind of guitars did Midnight prefer?"

Person 2: "He preferred Gibson guitars with humbucking pickups. However, I'm a little alarmed that you speak of him as if all he did was related to guitar playing. He was a Marine, and engineer, a devoted husband, an advocate of liberty, and winner of several Nobel and Pulitzer prizes. You cannot discount all of that when talking about him."

Person 1: "Dude, I know. I'm just curious what kind of guitars he liked."

---------------------

You can't have a rational discussion about something if both parties don't have a common objective set of values. Not everyone believes in Jesus' deity. I'm sorry, it's fact. Luckily, I don't have to examine Jesus' deity to examine his teachings, since he was human. His deity lends credibility to his teachings (to those who believe in it), but if I wish to engage in a discussion with someone that doesn't believe, I'll get much further if I cut out the extraneous points that are both irrelevant to the conversation and that we don't agree on.

You don't convince people of things by saying, "While you believe A, X is correct. Accept it." You convince people with "Do you believe A? Yes, then would you agree that A implies B? Yes, would you agree that if B then most likely C?

That is the difference between rational discussion and beating someone over the head with a KJV Bible full of family pictures, birth certificates, and newspaper clippings.

Jason Lewis was sitting in for El Rushbo today. He brought up an interesting point. Here's a direct quote: "It doesn't do us any good to preserve our freedom internationally if right back here at home it's going to be consumed by government."

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][

Since reading this thread, I've started to listen to talk radio in the short, 15-minute bouts around Huntsville in my car. I'm liking it so far.

I guess that's the last you'll hear of him...

What makes you say that Rap?

Boortz respoding to a caller: "If you took ALL your knowlege of economics and shoved it up a knats ass, it would rattle around like a BB in a battleship!". Lol, that made my day.

][-][ //-\\ ][_ {()} ][