Pangloss

No, clearly what we have is something more like 8 or 9 "no" votes. The problem lies only in the fact that the question could not be adequately explained on the subject line. The number is still not statistically significant, though. I was really hoping for a larger response. The thread has had 48 views, but I guess that counts returning posters.

So he lied when he said he would go after bin Laden in Pakistan by force without their permission? I don't buy it.

I see, you were parsing it in three ways: Deist, which you felt that the FFs were, Theist/interventionist, which you feel most Christians are today, and fundamentalist, which you feel only some Christians are today. That's fine, but I don't think it leads to this conclusion... ... because I think most Christians today define Christianity at the utterly simplest level, as anyone who believes in the Jesus myth and sees it as central to their faith. The problem isn't what most people believe, it's the direction that a few people leverage that belief to mean that they should do, in modern political terms. In other words, a few power-seekers distort an obvious broad base of Christian belief, which is common with our founding fathers, leveraging that belief into something that the founding fathers would not recognize in the political sense. Which I think is where your point shines as clear and absolute truth. Right, I followed that, and I agree, but there are two points worth considering in spite of what I agree was an ideological response from waitforufo: 1) Conservatives have generally become familiar with that "1956 addition" historical fact. They get it. Their partisanship may lead them around it, but they got the message. It is simply unlikely that Palin is unaware of the 1956 addition. So either she was addressing the larger issue, or she's one of those subset people who are deliberately misleading people for political power. Which answer is correct is a matter of opinion. (I'll choose the former, until I see more evidence of the latter.) 2) She's not wrong in saying we have Christianity in common with the founding fathers. She's just wrong in suggesting that the founding fathers would agree with many of her political positions that she feels result from that common belief. And I don't think that's putting too fine a point on it, either. We don't typically win over Christians to a more modern, progressive perspective by bludgeoning them on their faith, which is how this kind of story (re: Palin) plays out politically -- it sounds to them like you're beating her up for either mis-speaking or for believing in god. If we want these particular hearts and minds, I think we have to address their concerns in a more progressive and understanding manner. (And I do mean what I say when I say "we don't typically win over Christians" -- I think we bring them around gradually over time, and that this happens frequently.)

Sounds to me like some of the yes votes didn't understand the question. Based on the tone of the replies it's clear that "no" is the universally agreed-upon answer.

Wait, you cited Infidels.org and American Progress and you call those facts? Please, I gave at the office. The only non-partisan source you cited is Adherents, which states in a cute little chart that: Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204 In a word, Christians. You said it yourself: And the Wikipedia article you cited directly contradicts your "most" statement: And I already agreed with you, from the beginning, (here comes #4:) that they weren't fundamentalists. So what, exactly, is the problem?

I thought it worth mentioning here that Bob Woodward's fourth book on the Bush administration, entitled "The War Within", is due out this week. Amazon has it listed for $20.38 on pre-order. This one is supposed to focus on 2006-2008, and it's already drawing some interesting attention in the media. According to this Fox News article, the book is less critical than #3 ("State of Denial"), but accuses him of failure to lead even as the surge succeeded. In my opinion, what makes Woodward's opinion so valuable is that he has an open mind, and is not predisposed to judge the president by his party or ideological affiliations. He looked at the evidence and he came to very fair, reasonable conclusions, carefully and thoughtfully stopping short of the rash, pointless, partisan yammering that so often comes from the Bush haters. In short, he's objective. That makes his opinion worth listening to.

I wasn't saying they were fundamentalists, I was just pointing out that they were christian, which your links support. I've already agreed with you twice now (here's a third time:) that they were not fundamentalists, or as you put it "theist interventionist" types. But you guys do push that "most of them were deists" line too far, IMO. There's insufficient historical support for that conclusion.

Prove what, exactly? That the founding fathers were christian? Sure, right after you prove this one:

Ack! You're actually asking me which political party's convention was more substantive?! I'm not sure whether to chuckle at your predisposition showing through just a wee bit, or cry at the notion that an ostensibly reasonable, intelligent person found either of those awful, 4-day-long-attack-ads substantive. (sigh)

All I know is that they stated such belief, but the deism analysis is limited to a few specific "fathers", not the whole kit and kaboodle, which is how you and others here have reported it. But I don't think you're wrong in asking the question and I tend to agree with you regarding how they would have perceived the intersection of religion and government. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Protesters interrupted McCain's acceptance speech? Really?

Oh she called him a Top Gun? Yeah that's definitely stretching his qualifications, unless he actually went there and graduated. I could see someone not objecting to a comment like that at a party or in casual conversation, but as with Obama's speech, those things are planned to a T, so there's no excuse for that. (I would never, say, suggest that she just made a mistake. (insert ellipses here))

The thing I worry about is that being energized and passionate about beating Republicans/Democrats is not the same thing as being energized and passionate about fixing this country's problems.

People on the right do generally know about the 1956 addition -- it's a frequent talking point even amongst the beer-and-pretzels, gathering-around-the-BBQ-listening-to-country-music crowd, iNow. Most likely she just meant in the sense that "God" was good enough for the founding fathers. They did believe, and even if you pawn it off as "deism" it's still a firm belief in Christianity. The important thing is that they would not have involved religion in government. IMO we should just focus on that and not worry about who believes in what. It wouldn't be any better if an atheist were running for president and reporters were asking him/her "How would your atheism inform your presidency?" Some things are just as stupid when reversed.

I copied john5746's post over to this thread but I think because it was posted earlier it shows up as the first post of this thread. Bascule's post #2 is actually the first post of this thread. Sorry about that. line[/hr] I have to take issue with this fact-check on technical grounds: The Skyhawk was indeed a fighter plane, frequently loaded out with air-to-air missiles, and McCain was a fighter pilot, by the normally-accepted layman's definition. The Navy differentiates between "fighter" and "attack" roles for combat jets, but the Skyhawk was fully capable in both roles and often performed a 'fighter' role even though its primary mission was 'attack'. Furthermore, pilots are trained for both roles, and are not differentiated between "attack pilots" and a higher level called "fighter pilots" -- they are the same. That's even more true today, with one plane performing both roles (the F/A-18 Hornet), but it was true in McCain's time as well. But more to the point, we call pilots of both types of aircraft 'fighter pilots' when referring to them in the general literature and amongst the general public. This is a long-standing tradition. Just to give an example of how ubiquitous the Skyhawk was in the "fighter" or "air combat" role, the plane was often used in "red gun" air-to-air operations to simulate Russian fighter aircraft, and in that role it often beat far superior "fighter" aircraft like the Hornet, Phantom and Tomcat. It was also flown by the Blue Angels for several decades (not replaced until the Hornet), which doesn't mean anything by itself but does indicate that it was a high performance aircraft of the general fighter variety. (Similarly the Thunderbirds flew the T-38 Talon trainer for many years, but the Talon was sold overseas as the F-5 fighter.)

Lol, I hear ya. But seriously, don't you think there's a point to be made about non-partisanship and Obama? Or do you think he's just trying to sell something to the people who don't know any better? You keep telling me you're not a partisan, so shouldn't you be on my side with this? I know you judge individual issues individually -- I've seen you do it, even siding with opponents on a smaller, side-concern. What is that, if it isn't non-partisan reasoning?

I see what you mean, pardon me. I agree that people need to know the difference between the two parties, but the difference between the two parties ISN'T that one lies and the other does not, or that one does what it says it's going to do and the other does not, or that one is always good and the other is always evil. I think this is what people mean when they say things like "don't tell me what Bush did wrong, tell me what YOUR plan is". Obama HAS a plan, but it seems like all he talks about is what Bush did wrong. This is detrimental, not helpful. Just look at all the rhetoric about how McCain is like Bush. What the frack difference does that make? Don't you want OBAMA to be like Bush, when it comes to things that Bush did RIGHT? If you just categorically dismiss everything Bush did as wrong, then you're just setting yourself up to either contradict yourself and open yourself up to pointless (but well-grounded) criticism later when you do something that Bush also did, or you can't do what Bush did, even though it was the right thing to do, because Bush did it. How can that possibly make sense?

I was going to wait for McCain's speech but I think john5746 posted something already on Palin, and if anyone else wants to chime in it's cool with me. What little I saw of her speech seemed very attack-focused and spin-oriented.

Sounds like two-wrongs reasoning to me. It's wrong that Republicans are partisan, so to counter that we need to be partisan as well. I respect your opinion but I'm just not going to buy that kind of pessimism. I *know* we can do better than that. People are stupid but they're also there, watching, paying some kind of attention. All you have to do is get them on board with the idea. And given congress' 9% approval rating, it sounds to me like they are PRIME for a non-partisanship argument. Besides, that's most of Obama's appeal with most Americans, guy. People aren't flocking to his side because he's hooked up with George Soros and MoveOn.org!

It's an interesting point. For the most part I probably wouldn't agree with it -- I see the parties as detrimental. But I have to admit it's a compelling argument, not the least of reasons being that not everyone is so interested in politics as we are. I got an email from "Barack Obama" tonight that might illustrate the point: The rest of the email goes on to talk about perfectly salient issues and there's nothing really wrong with any of that, but I think statements like the above are needlessly partisan. You don't have to distort you opponent or be hypocritical about your own actions (both of which are in the quote above) in order to make a substantive comment or even criticize your opponent's policies. I see that whole "failed policies of the Bush administration" meme the same way. It's not that I don't think many Bush policies have failed, I just think it's a huge mistake to play that as The Reason To Vote For Obama. It's absolutely BEGGING for the opposition to do the exact same thing for the next eight years. Obama can only do so much. If we really want to get rid of partisanship in this country and bring people together, we're going to have to give up on this notion that the other side is always wrong.

In many cases, sure. But clearly it's not a false dichotomy or you would have no problem with the anti-global warming crowd, or the creationists. Obviously there is a distinct difference between deliberate distortion for purposes of making the other side wrong, and just seeing things differently when the evidence is unclear. We should be able to convince people to do something about global warming because the evidence is clear. But on other issues, such as determining the best point to begin sex education, or in situations where data is lacking and "common sense" becomes the guide, obviously people will see things differently. That's not partisanship. So partisanship is real, it's wrong, and it's not a false dichotomy.

Okay, seems logical enough. I'm sure many partisans are partisans because they feel they have to offset partisans on the other side. It's probably a very common line amongst partisans. Kind of a mutual-assured-destruction approach to politics.

What about unfounded accusations of unfounded accusations of partisanship? (grin) I just want to know what people think. From where I sit personally, you could say that this works out better for me if the majority answers "yes", because if the majority answers "no" then I have to eat crow for one of my favorite rants: partisanship and political correctness on this board. But if they answer "yes" then I get to rant about evidence to people who should already know if its import. So please, by all means, answer yes! Or just forget all that and be honest. It's usually the best policy.

You've made countless claims of that nature in the past. Pulling an O'Reillyesque "No Ideology Zone" now isn't going to change that. So you think partisanship is worth it? That it's productive and useful and relevant? That seems to be what you're saying. Am I misreading you? line[/hr] Just caught this news item: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/04/2008-09-04_sarah_palins_speech_wins_tv_ratings_batt.html Apparently Palin drew almost as many viewers as Obama did in his speech. That's surprising, but I suspect that many of those viewers were drawn in by Obama and listened to Palin out of a sense of fair play. Not that that's a bad thing -- I happen to see it as one of Obama's strengths.

Thanks for the info on that. Very interesting.