I was actually intrigued with this article by Mr. Greif until I came to the following line:

"Republicans, now so unwilling to spend $800 billion to rebuild this country, had no such hesitation in spending an equal sum for the destruction of Iraq."

What Mr. Greif did with that one sentence was showcase his ignorance for political affairs and offend every American who has honored their country by serving overseas.

First - his statement that the "stimulus" package is what will rebuild this country is as far off the mark as you can be. What a completely ludicrous statement. If anything,the package will burden this country further with overwhelming debt, while offering minimal immediate relief to the average worker in America. What it DOES do off offer a false sense of security by patching holes in state budgets, left open by irresponsible fiscal management and bad policy.

Second - I am without words to adequately describe the level of disrespect and complete disconnect Mr. Greif has with the actions and purpose of our armed services and their service overseas. His words showcase how easy it is these days to have a voice without substance. Hand a man a keyboard and dangerous things can happen.

Mr. Greif - while you are in your parlor, thumbing through your historical papers and playing with your civil war chess set, thousands of Americans are serving in harms way to defend your right to have rubbish like your empty and disrespectful thoughts published for the world to see.

Shame on you for your lack of perspective and understanding of the topic you chose to discuss.

Shame on us for bringing it to light.

Thank you Mr. Greif for enlightening us again on the insanity we call politics. This statement caught my eye: "This Know Nothing base is now aligned with Dixiecrats, whose forebears were so incensed at Lincoln’s election that they fired on the American flag at Fort Sumter and began the Civil War." We can't be too far off from civil war at a time when republicans take their marching orders from their bloated messiah, Rush Limbaugh, who sows fear and hatred with completely fabricated stories about "red meat" items supposedly included in the stimulus package (not!), while calling Democrats "liberal socialists" and likening us to murderers and rapists. Oh, and as for the big zero the R's are so proud of when it came to voting on the stimulus, they should be called the "Do-Nothing" party now, and that's being nice. I'm sure their constituents feel proud and safe now that their representatives have taken a "party over people" stance while jobs and services are circling the drain.

This seems like a fantastic place to announce that the Bangor Republican City Committee (www.gopbangor.com) will be holding its February Meeting on Wednesday the 25th at 5:30pm at Husson University. Details of the meeting are online at www.gopbangor.com.

Why do I post this here? It's a big day for political discussion and as Chair of the Bangor Republican City Committee, I am encouraged by the number of folks commenting on their desire to see true Republican principles return to our government arenas. Our committee gives you the forum to do something about that desire.

By becoming an active part of the committee - you are helping to recruit and foster candidates for a variety of local and state offices - and support their efforts by donating time, talents or funds (or all three!).

I would welcome anyone who has a desire to not only voice their concerns but help the cause to participate in the committee. It is absolutely the best way to see that your voice is heard and the people we elect to represent us are fiscally responsible for your tax dollars.

Again - www.gopbangor.com for complete information on the upcoming meeting as well the remaining year's calendar of meetings.

New faces are ALWAYS welcome!

Thanks!

Cary Weston

Chair - Bangor Republican City Committee

caryweston, the calendar page would be a more appropriate location for your meeting announcements. It's more than a little annoying that you are cross-posting it all over the comment boards today. Also, point of clarity, the First Amendment of the Constitution defends our freedom of speech, and our taxes support the military. Mr. Greif wasn't dissing the military and you know it. It is very telling that you would attempt to censor the author while wrapping yourself in the flag. Rather un-American, I'd say. Finally, how much does the GOP pay you to spew that swill? Or should I say shill?

anne_of_mdi: I think it's entirely appropriate considering the discussion is about the future of the GOP. Cary, although not a Bangor resident, I wish you the best of luck in your meeting and future progress.

Frankly, given the title of the piece, I was somewhat hoping this would be a opinion piece chastising Maine's two Republican Senators. Alas...

So: When Republicans are willing to bow to the ideology of liberals we are hailed as heroes; when we stand against "stimulus" packages laced with socialism, we are "divisive"; when we point out all the numerous economic problems, government expansion, and unrelated spending (e.g. 30m for a mouse habitat in Pelosi's district) that will be result of this bill we are "negative". What I don't understand is why take interest in us at all when the Democrats control everything and don't need the GOP. Perhaps because the Dems are as nervous about the porkulous bill as Republicans are? Of course they are. Even VP Biden said the passage of the bill would likely come back to haunt the Donkeys in 2010. Let's hope we get solid, principled candidates to prove him right.

As for the Iraq comment... I have come to expect such empty, ignorant rhetoric from the opposition. What makes it somewhat more deplorable for it to come from someone living/working in Bangor is that such a person can very easily trek themselves down to either of the National Guard bases in the city and learn for themselves what the situations and experiences of the War on Terror - Iraq are.

Caryweston appears to be a Know Nothing Republican by virtue of his implicit challenge to the author's patriotism. The Iraqi people don't want us there and have, by the SOFA, asked us to leave. Does caryweston still think we were "greeted as liberators"? Caryweston, this hasn't been the liberation of Paris in 1944. Look at the ruins of Fallujah and ask yourself why the Iraqis want us to go. Has it been a little too much shock and awe for the Iraqis? Our troops did what they were asked to do. Our ex-President failed them.

jkradke, another dupe who has fallen for the "Pelosi's mouse" lie, professing to speak for his party! It's incredible how totally taken in Rush's disciples are. And by the way, seeing the stimulus as ideological instead of pragmatic is precisely why it's only folks on the hard-right who believe Republican talking points anymore.

anne_of_mdi: Here is a link to the Washington Times article that details what you call a lie

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/

Also, the "Iraqi people" referred to by Fausto are a group of about 30,000-40,000 Shi'ite Muslims--the same brand of fundamentalist Islam touted by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muqtada al-Sadr. Hardly a majority voice of 29.2 million Iraqis (assuming the protesters were even all Iraqi). Certainly not every Iraqi agrees with our presence, but at least now they can protest and live to tell about it, eh? Further, for every picture of protest there is at least one of thankfulness towards are men and women in uniform.

So the war in Iraq was... good? Most would agree that its most visible result is an embolded Iran. Opposing the war is not the same thing as disrespecting the troops.

But then this is a tactic the right uses again and again in argument: pick out one small piece and label it "offensive." Keep hammering until the salient points of the argument (Greif's analysis of the Republican party) are forgotten.

I'm happy to have a smart man in the White House who THINKS before he REACTS. If the previous president had done a little more of that, Obama would have a much smaller mess to clean up.

Good Greif!

Why is it whenever one attempts to enter into a discussion of Legislation with a Marxist, within two paragraphs, their into name calling? It's no wonder that Mark Russell, the Washington Comedian, has observed that, "Maine and Vermont are no longer States... they've become Theme Parks".

Just yesterday, some idiot was calling Judge Single "in the tank for Republicans like Jim Tobin". The Judge was a Clinton appointment for crying out loud. Does anyone believe Wet Willy would appoint anyone not a life-long Democrat? George Single is a serious, talented, and honorable Jurist and serves Mainers very well.

The Genesis of this crisis began with far-left policies by the Banking Queen and other insider idealogues like Sen. Chris (Can you say sub-prime loan deals to politicians?) Dodd pushing their agenda of a "home to all" and at any cost. Yes, Wall Street tycoons fell prey to the feeding frenzy and looking out for #1. There's little question that the Law of Inintended Consequences awaits patiently for all this Big Government Take Over to take hold before proving Susan and Olympia as sadly niave.

All too soon, "Made In America" will become... "Made In America by noncompetitive and nonsustainable Union Legacy Costs"... and we'll just continue to fall behind the rest of the world in productivity.

How can you justify a $500K limit on CEO salaries and pay an incompetent head of the Post Office over $800K? Hypocrit.

It takes a complete troglodyte to demand corporations sell off their fancy jets, while Miss America flies around in a 737. Hypocrit.

Dr. Peter Senge approptriatley observed that, "The key to Economic Development lies NOT in the Addition of Incentives... But in the Removal of Impediments". Then, America's true Entrepreneurs can do what they do best... creat good-paying jobs.

Gosh, see how easy it is to fall into the name-calling trap? I must be reading too many Op Eds in the BDN...

jkradke, “There are no federal wetland restoration projects in line to get funded in San Francisco,” Pelosi spkesperson Drew Hammill said. “Neither the Speaker nor her staff have had any involvement in this initiative. The idea that $30 million will be spent to save mice is a total fabrication.”

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/pelosi-staff-conservative-talking-point-about-30-million-for-mice-is-fabrication

jkradke, see also the section "Pork for Mice?" here http://www.factcheck.org/politics/stimulus_bill_bravado.html

wtsawyer, you call opponents "Marxist" and then complain about name-calling. Do you even sense the irony? Know Nothings became a core constituency of the Republican Party and remain so today. Your misspelling prowess suggests you are a proud member of that wing. Wall Street executives are ever thankful for your servile attitude towards them.

Ladyslipper, I pay more in tips than you do in taxes. Tell me about how David Vitter, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, et al. have abstained from sex with other than their wives. How many wives have McCain, Guliani, et al. had? Point to one post where I have defended Marxism. I have pointed out that your quote of Marx "to each according to his need" failed to recognize its origins in the New Testament. You are the memeber of a church with a long history of radical communism in its early days. I'm an agnostic, disdainful of anyone who reads only one book, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Torah or Das Kapital. Do not continue to show your Know Nothing roots.

jradke, were you a closer observer of Iraqi elections you would know that every Iraqi political party has in its platform an end date for American occupation. Al-Maliki's party did well in the regional elections only because he had pushed hard in the SOFA for an end date to the occupation. I gently suggest that were Maine occupied by foreign forces you would want them gone. It is human nature.

Fausto, it was never the intention of the United States to occupy the country indefinitely. (I am not sure you realise this.) Indeed the agreement was praised by President Bush, as it should be, given the significant reduction of violence over the term of the occupation (thanks to our military) and the maturation of the Iraqi security forces. We can only pray that the Iraqi government will be successful in preventing Iranian-backed terrorist groups from upsetting their new democracy and further unstabilising the region.

I would also point out that PM al-Maliki has retained the right as part of the SOFA to negotiate our continued stay past the 2011 date should the security situation deteriorate--hardly the move of a man convinced that our presence is detested by the country.

anne_of_mdi, Frankly, anything can be hidden in a 1000 page bill that is given less than twelve hours of review and debate time. The issue comes down to whom you trust and, far more importantly, the state of the country as a result of a Dem-controlled DC when mid-terms arrive.

jkradke, why was McCain touting the permanence of our presence in Korea as an example of what might transpire in Iraq? Why were the extremely large military bases initially described by the Pentagon as enduring? Why was the mission described as Operation Enduring Freedom? Why did al Maliki, in July, upset the Bush administration by saying that he thought Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan looked about right? Why were the negotiations on SOFA so protracted that the deal was not inked until the UN authorization had almost expired? Why is either success or failure touted as a reason for troops to stay? Your self-deception is sad. Having had the Saudis kick us out, the idea was always to have permanent military bases in Iraq, but to be coy about our long term plans, both because the American and Iraqi people would not stand for it. At what point did you distrust Bush? Do you still think Saddam had WMDs? Naivete does not become you.

Fausto, I only care that an evil dictator is dead (thus he can no longer obtain or use WMDs like he did in Halabja) and that terrorists in Iraq continue to be destroyed thanks to our outstanding military and their ultimate sacrifices--to which we are forever indebted. The Iraqi people have a brighter future now than when we arrived, and that means a new ally in the region.

We have heard from Arthur Greif on Republican principles. Now a few words from Abraham Lincoln:

YOU CANNOT BRING ABOUT PROSPERITY BY DISCOURAGING THRIFT.

YOU CANNOT STRENGTHEN THE WEAK BY WEAKENING THE STRONG.

YOU CANNOT HELP THE WAGE EARNER BY PULLING DOWN THE WAGE PAYER.

YOU CANNOT HELP THE POOR BY DESTROYING THE RICH.

YOU CANNOT KEEP OUT OF TROUBLE BY SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN.

YOU CANNOT BUILD CHARACTER AND COURAGE BY TAKING AWAY MAN’S INITIATIVE AND INDEPENDENCE.

YOU CANNOT HELP MEN PERMANENTLY BY DOING FOR THEM WHAT THEY COULD AND SHOULD DO FOR THEMSELVES.

Doesn't sound like liberaltalk to me.

Thank you for sharing those thoughts, frary1. I'm sure we're both now open for excoriation by our lib friends for being so f-ing stupid, heartless, and probably even for lying, somehow.

Hey look, that guy's writing his own Ten Commandments!

Frary1, check your sources. I have read Lincoln voraciously and never read these words you attribute to him. Quotationsbook.com confirms that this was an attribution that began being widely reported only in the 1940s. Their web-site states: "The Library of Congress and Lincoln scholars believe that any connections made between Lincoln and the Ten Points is spurious." You left out the other three points, but your post remains spurious. You need to measure twice and cut once before you post again.

Do you contest the historical fact that Lincoln signed a progressive income tax, gave land to those willing to till the soil, founded the Land Grant college system, and subsidized mass transit? Your party in Congress consists mostly of Dixiecrats whose great great granddaddies left the Union rather than see Lincoln become their President.

Are you the interesting fellow who ran against Mike Michaud?

Is anybody able to count to ten here?

Ladyslipper, it seems elemental that when one ascribes a quote to a person that it be something he actually said. This is called honesty. Our 16th President was known as Honest Abe. Note that I didn't attack Frary as a person, but simply challenged his source and engaged his intellect. That's precisely what Lincoln did with Douglas. I will let Frary respond.

I will leave the personal attacks to you.

cary good luck with your meeting. "United we stand and divided we fall". keep up the good work and words!!

anne_of_mdi - our taxes pay for for more than the military - and they certainly defend the First Amendment - and all others - by supporting the infrastructure created by our founding fathers, ensuring all words in the Constitution are upheld. Unfortunately, the Constitution did not mention the need for logic, reason or accountability in the First Amendment, so you are free to continue with your postings without fear of violation.

It's amazing to me that when folks take offense to the disrespect and careless use of words in one's post it's considered an attempt of censorship but the same level of critique doesn't get applied to the author himself....interesting double standard you have. Its become the calling card of the socialist way - there can be no discussion, there can only be agreement or bias.

To your question of being paid paid to "spew" words - why must you consider anyone with a point of view different than yours and the ability to communicate a paid arm of any party or cause? Is the idea of independent thought and principles so far removed from your reality? I'd say that's a rather sad way to live.

And by the way - it was you who first miscounted with our reference to the number TEN in this post. Glass houses, Ms. Anne...glass houses.

Caryweston, simply calling a contention ludicrous and labeling opponents "socialist" is not an example of reasoned debate. You need to worry about your party. Collins, Snowe and Specter are now a very lonely minority. Governor Crist in Florida understands the need for stimulus spending, as did Mike Huckabee in the Republican debates. The package has a mix of tax cuts and spending increases that sought the middle ground that would attract Collins, et al.

William F. Buckley told his son, Christopher (who voted for Obama and got expelled from the National Review for that heresy): "I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks." The elder Buckley rejected the neo-conservative militarism of Cheny/Bush and other Republicans last year, such as Susan Eisenhower, came out for Obama. At the meeting this week ask yourself what you are doing to separate the Right from the kooks.

Mr. Frary cited only seven of the "Ten Points" that the Right has misascribed to Lincoln since the New Deal. That anne_of_mdi recognized the spurious source is a tribute to her intellect. Caryweston, have you checked the cite above to confirm that Lincoln never spoke these words?

Ladyslipper, Richard Nixon is one of many Republicans who cheated on his taxes: he back-dated a deed pf his Vice-Presidential papers to illegally claim a sizeable deduction.

caryweston, "it was you who first miscounted with our reference to the number TEN," I guess I can could call anything ten and you would believe it! I am so relieved that the Bangor Republicans have a leader with a razor-sharp intellect like you. Since you didn't answer the question about how much you get paid, I gather it's a pittance, which is all the Rs can raise these days, poor things. Keep whipping up the anti-gay crowd and maybe you could earn a little more. How's that for a stimulus package?

Indeed, Fausto, the words are the product of famed American Presbyterian minister, William J. H. Boetcker. He published them in 1916 in a pamphlet that included genuine quotes from Mr Lincoln. So that should make you happy since clearly you would go mad if such a conservative quotation were connected to Abraham Lincoln. For reference, the other three points are:

"You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred."

All ten points are strikingly timely and sure to make liberals nauseous.

Also, Fausto, in regards to Lincoln's policy initiatives that he signed. First, Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Whig Party before he was a Republican. The Whig ideology held that Congress wrote the laws and it was not the President's duty to stand in the way of the people's representatives. All Linclon cared about was that the Congress not neuter his wartime powers during the Civil War, and which he wielded in ways that might sound familiar to the left (like suspending habeas corpus for) and unfamiliar (censoring the media and deporting political opponents who opposed the Civil War)--no doubt thankfully.

Second, Lincoln was a product of a lower class upbringing and an adoration of Henry Clay; he believed that taming the West was only something that could be done successfully through law and order under the guise of government oversight. In other words, Fausto, Lincoln governed in good faith within the context of his Whig foundation, and with a firm devotion for the future of the United States as a strong force in the world. Check out Lincoln's Lyceum Address (1838) and his eulogy for Henry Clay (1852) and see what you think about those.

What makes Lincoln so celebrated is the way he articulated his love for the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers; his respect for the original intent of the Constitution; that he loved this country enough to fight a costly civil war to keep it preserved; that he firmly believed in the principles of individual advancement; and most importantly, that he understood this country to be a product of Divine Providence.

I don't see many liberals clamoring to identify themselves with these aspects of Abraham Lincoln's legacy.

P.S. Thankz Fausto!

Fausto, are you priceless.

First, you criticize wtsawyer for his misspelling and in the very next post, you can't spell the word "member" correctly. I seem to recall an adage about people who live in glass houses...

Second you never responded to my comments on the 2/4 letters. Apparently, you either can't or won't engage in serious dialogue with someone is able to poke holes in your perversion of Scripture re: the early church and marxism. You, in fact, continue the delusion by referencing, "you are the memeber (sic.) of a church with a long history of radical communism in its early days." Your argument is laughable on its face because of its disregard for early church history. Which is it? The "long history"? Or "its early days"? The longest that the early church could have "had all things common" was less than 40 years because of the dispersion. In fact, it probably was much shorter than that, because of the persecution of the early church by Jewish leaders and by Rome, which began well before 70 AD. As I've pointed out earlier, the example of the early church in Acts 2 and 4 is not a guidebook for governmental economic policy. Its shortcomings were addressed by Paul, as I referenced in my posts on the 2/4 letters.

Lastly, you've ignored my repeated requests for more information on Luke 2:47. Since you apparently consider yourself an authority on the early church, you should have a ready answer for what believers in that passage were saved from. I eagerly await your reply...

anne_of_mdi: thank you for your last reply. Seriously - I could not have demonstrated how empty your thoughts truly are any better than that.

Think nothing of it, caryweston, for I realize you are incapable of demonstrating anything.

Dirigodad, I looked at Luke 2:47 and am puzzled ("and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers"). If that is meant as a reference to me, please desist; I am not that bright. As to Acts 2:41-47, the early Christians surely delivered things into common ownership and gave them out according to the need of each. Nothing you have quoted to me suggests that was untrue. Are you saying you pick and choose what to believe in the Bible? That is fine. Jefferson did as well. However, I thought you were a literalist. I suspect that until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, various Christians lived communally in their various communities. The church hstory is really silent on this. Communal living would have been easier for a persecuted sect.

Jradke, the problem with the minister's words ascribed to Lincoln is the untruth of putting words in someone else's mouth. The Ten Points seem to be platitiudes, some of which I would agree with, such as not discouraging thrift. If used to oppose progressive income taxes, I have a problem with the words. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan all supported progressive taxation. Reagan, after the 1982 tax hikes, had the top rate at 50%. Every other tax is regressive: its effective percentage declines as income rises.

Do not try to tell me that Lincoln was a helpless victim of a runaway Congress. He supported Clay's American Plan and voted for taxes and strategic borrowing as a member of Illinois' Legislature and the US House. His suspension of habeas corpus was permitted under the Constitution, as it was a time of Rebellion. Congress expressly ratified that suspension. Read Article I, section 9. Lincoln was an opponent of the Mexican-American War, so he did not believe in Manifest Destiny through war. Lincoln was not a member of any church and invoked God's name (but rarely Christ's) because he understood the power this held with his audience. He never was a strict constructionist when it came to the Constitution, but that will be reserved for a later debate. When Taney said that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln disagreed. A strict constructionist would have agreed with Taney.

My apologies Fausto. The good doctor Luke also wrote the book of Acts. I'm looking for your answer to what the early Christians were saved from (in Acts 2:47).

I never said Acts 2:41-47 was untrue...you seem to have an intriguing way of conveniently twisting words to avoid becoming embarrassed when discussing a subject with which you're uncomfortable.

Church history is not silent on the subject of early Christians and their wealth. Passages in Acts and the NT Epistles indicate that there believers with varying degrees of wealth. Instead of suspecting things, how about actually confirming them by studying all the Scriptures, not just the ones that you prooftext to fit your economic policy?

SharonFaith, as noted above, with a citation to demonstrate it, Lincoln scholars and the Library of Congress have stated that Lincoln had no connection with the Ten Points. Jradke, a conservative, agrees and tells you who the author is on this very same post. I assume that you have simply not read the entire post. If you have and are simply engaged in the willing suspension of disbelief, I understand why George Bush so easily fooled you.

Dirigodad, there is a fascinating history of how certain books got into the New Testament and how others were eliminated. I don't believe one could tell the history of how Christianity grew until its adoption by the Roman Empire by the books of the New Testament, as there are gaps of over 100 years in the chronology. My core point is this: I am tired of seeing liberals called Marxists and socialists by people whose own religion has a tradition of communism. I scrupulously avoid calling anyone on the right a fascist, because I know what that word actually means. Ladyslipper doesn't know what either Marxist or socialist means, and so throws the word around as she might salt on her(his?) popcorn.

"Do not try to tell me that Lincoln was a helpless victim of a runaway Congress."

And I did not. I said he supported government oversight when it came to the settling of the West. Lincoln approved the income tax in 1861 to pay for the Civil War. The 1864 tax act that replaced was written with an expiration date (and it did expire in 1873) All I have stated is that the man was a Whig by foundation and practice, and that his decisions must be judged within the context of history.

"Ronald Reagan all supported progressive taxation. Reagan, after the 1982 tax hikes, had the top rate at 50%. Every other tax is regressive: its effective percentage declines as income rises."

Yes, and you are conveniently leaving out these facts: 1) the top marginal rate when he took office was 70% and cut to 50% in August 1981; 2) when he signed the 1982 tax increase it was under the stipulation that Congress reduce spending $3 for every $1 increase--so the act was a political maneuver designed to reduce the deficit spending habits of Congress in the 80s; 3) the top rate was reduced to 28% when he rewrote the tax code in 1986.

Conservatives are not against taxation by its definition. We are against excessive and unfair taxation and using taxation to stir class warfare (which is why we support a flat tax), to expand the government, promote fiscal irresponsibility, and to redistribute wealth (socialism).

"Lincoln was not a member of any church and invoked God's name (but rarely Christ's) because he understood the power this held with his audience."

If you are suggesting that Lincoln merely uttered God's name for effect and nothing else, then you know very little of Mr Lincoln indeed. And the term I used was "Divine Providence". "Manifest Destiny" is a wholly separate and different term.

"He never was a strict constructionist when it came to the Constitution..."

I never stated this either. In fact any Lincoln scholar would know that the man vastly preferred the Declaration of Independence when governing, and indeed considered it the superior document.

Fausto, I see your purpose is to raise the ire of conservatives by pointing out liberal actions in men we consider to be American heroes in a game of "tit for tat". I can play that game with Democrat heroes too re: Andrew Jackson (Electoral College, American Indian policies), JFK (Vietnam/Cuba) and Bill Clinton (welfare reform). (And frankly I don't think many conservatives latch on to Teddy Roosevelt's domestic governance.)

That is the problem with leftists: they are all about looking at people under a microscope, pointing out flaws and errs in our people so as to try to reduce them to the level of their own--and also because conservatives old morality as something to honour and strive. I am only interested in the whole career and moral person of an individual. Everything else is just sour grapes and an inability to accept a historical record as the sum of its parts.

RE: Christian history:

"...there is a fascinating history of how certain books got into the New Testament and how others were eliminated."

If you are referring to the commonly held belief that the canonical Bible as we know it was the result of "yay/nay" votes of each book contemporary to the 4th century church, then it is just that: a story because the real history is something of a miracle (and that certainly can't be taught in public education).

The canonical Bible largely already existed in its current form for 200 years prior to the Council of Laodicea (~363 AD), just unofficially. At that council it was discovered that the early churches were essentially all using the same 26 books over that time: 4 Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul. Thus the canon was officially named as these books more as a formality than anything else. (Google "Muratorian fragment".)

One has to delve deeper into the two classifications of early Christian writings--those being homologoumena (universally recognized books) and antilegomena (not universally recognised due to questions on apostolic authourship)--to de-mythologise how the canonosed Bible came to be. I am not sure Christianity's opponents are much interested in that though since it doesn't fir their agenda.

"My core point is this: I am tired of seeing liberals called Marxists and socialists by people whose own religion has a tradition of communism."

And I am tired of non-Christians believing they have superior authority when it comes to a history and faith with which they are in opposition. Would we accept a history of the United States written by Russia or the Taliban?

Also, the Bible is not meant for political commentary. It is a narrative on God's plan of salvation. In fact, what little there is in the Bible on politics pretty much upholds the authority of government, whatever its form ("Render unto Caesar...", "Submit to authority..."). Of course, out of context, this would give a tyrant the belief he is justified in his over-rule. In actuality it is really meant to be within the context of "Do unto others..." and a godly lifestyle.

For example, Martin Luther criticised the rebels who participated in the massacre that was the Peasant's War in 1524 for rebelling against a lawful government; he then turned around and excoriated the German nobles for abusing the people and giving them reason to feel the need to rebel in the first place. So you see, as long as one abides by the morals and principles outlined in the Bible then there will be no cause for rebellion. Simple, until human nature is exploited and takes control.

Ladyslipper can't spell Marxist either.

Jradke, there is no break between Whigs and Republicans. The Whigs and Republicans were each the more liberal party in the 19th Century. The Rs only began turning right under McKinley. Lincoln was likely a deist, although he never made it explicit. He talked about God, particularly in his Second Inaugural, and felt comfortable quoting the Bible, as did most men of his era. I do not recall his using "Divine Providence" in any speech or letter. Please educate me. His reluctance to use force in international affairs is best exemplified by his rejection of the Mexican-American War and his later rejection of Seward's idea that he unite both North and South by repelling the French invasion of Mexico. Finally, he saw the American experiment as unique in history, as does any liberal I have ever met. He saw it as unique for its ideas, not for the particular ethnic group which had formed it; indeed, he was a lifelong proponent of immigration. I find very little that Lincoln would have in common with the militaristic, nationalistic, xenophobic, tax-phobic Republican party of today.

jradke, as to Reagan and the 28% upper rate: that came with taxation of capital gains at the same rate and the elimination of a host of deductions. Bush II has allowed hedge fund managers to game the system by calling all of their income capital gains, taxed at 15%. Finally, the 86 reform package made the entire tax rate 28% at a certain income level, not just the marginal rate. Reagan ran up a huge debt with his "conservative" fiscal policies, and, unlike Clinton, never submitted a balanced budget.

Three quotes (the last from his wife), and thus I consider my arguments complete on the matter:

"In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day." (Personal Diary, September, 1862)

"In regard to this great book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it." (Washington Daily Morning Chronicle, September 8, 1864)

"From the time of the death of our little Edward, I believe my husband's heart was directed towards religion & as time passed on - when Mr. Lincoln became elevated to Office - with the care of a great Nation, upon his shoulders - when devastating war was upon us then indeed to my knowledge - did his great heart go up daily, hourly, in prayer to God - for his sustaining power When too - the overwhelming sorrow came upon us, our beautiful bright angelic boy, Willie was called away from us, to his Heavenly Home, with God's chastising hand upon us - he turned his heart to Christ."

RE: Reagan

I again direct you to the context of the 80s, the Reagan Presidency in relation to the Democrat-controlled Congress (who blocked the Balanced Budget Amendment), and a wide view of Reagan's entire presidency and its impact on economics. Nothing ever works out perfectly for anybody, Fausto. That's the political game. Reagan admitted as much when he said that the new debt was a blot on his record. As a liberal you should be redirecting focus given how "fiscally responsible" your guy has been after just a month in office.

Reagan's legacy has nothing to prove to conservatives. We know his policies on the whole prospered this nation for a decade-and-a-half after leaving office, and libs do too otherwise why attack said legacy so zealously. As for Clinton--c'mon, take a look at who controlled Congress for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency and forced him to actually do it.

In the end, Fausto, nothing I say will change your mind because you are committed to your side. That's cool, but I am just as committed to mine and just as confident that history is far more often on the right's side than on the left's.

And so, jradke, why have both GNP and the Dow grown faster under Democrats than Republicans for the last eighty years, during which each party has controlled the White House for exactly half the time? Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress. A balanced budget amendment is fiscal insanity in times of recession when only counter-cyclical spending can boost the economy. Reagan presided over record unemployment for the post-war years and the 82 levels have still not been reached in the current recession.

Where was your concern for fiscal prudence when the Rs spent $800 billion on the Iraq War? You justify it because Saddam was an evil dictator who gassed his people? We waited out Stalin and could have waited out Saddam. He was our guy in the Middle East when he gassed the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War. Read about Rumsfeld giving Saddam a set of golden spurs when he visited Saddam on behalf of Reagan in the 80s. Contemporaneous notes of his discussions with Saddam reveal that he was silent about the use of chemical weapons.

Lincoln had an interesting bout of soul-searching after he lost his second son. He met with spiritualists, discussed Christianity with his wife, who was clearly religious, and agonized over his faith. He clearly was a deist, but belonged to no organized church in his entire life. Your first quote echoes the words of the Second Inaugural.

Professor Fausto tells one writer that, "I pay more in tips than you pay in income taxes". Really?

How about Ol' Fausto and I entertain a small wager as to just who pays out the most in taxes?

I'll even offer you a multiple-choice:

a) Who made the most in 2008?

b) Who made the most over the past ten years?

b) Who gave more away to charity over the past ten years?

We could send a modest wager to either the CPA or respected attorney of your choice, provde them with the appropriate federal filling documentation, with the highest number taking the pot.

I might even allow you to grade my latest term paper for spelling, grammer, and the all-important use of "irony" and "sarcasm"...

Are you up to the challenge, or shall we all call you something impolite in our next posts as yet another empty suit?

wtsawyer, that's a pretty idiotic proposition. We don't ask people here to give out any personal information. Bluff much? BTW, Fausto is a lady, not a "suit," unless you meant "pant suit."

Nicely said, jkradke...I think the whole concept of Democrat control of Congress during the Reagan years was a little over her head.

I'm surprised that an attorney, Mr. Grief, would applaud a piece of legislation that was written behind closed doors in secret meetings with lobbyists for special-interest groups. Aren't any of you defenders of this rotten, pork-studded bill embarrassed that Obama promised to end the practice of writing legislation in secret? Collins and Snowe just voted to spend (borrow) more money than has been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on Hurricane Katrina, and they did it without a single public hearing. They must think they are royalty, and we are their subjects.

I have to ask all the drones and sycophants who are heaping praise on our Senators this question: does that muzzle you're wearing fit comfortably? And what about the collar? When Susan and Olympia tug on the leash and tell you to heel, does the collar chafe?

"Crouch down and lick the hand that feed you; may your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that we were our countrymen."

Tom Sawyer, your posts may come back to haunt you, should you ever run for office again, so you need to be careful in what you type. Defending the salaries of bailed-out corporate America and calling opponents Marxists will not go well with your former constituents in Bangor and Hermon.

I noted that I paid more in tips than Ladyslipper does in taxes. I have never made that claim as to you, unless you are ladyslipper in disguise. I think not. You are the former CEO of Sawyer Industrial Services and Sawyer Environmental Services. Wtsawyer truly gives you away.

fausto, I know you may doubt LS petertaber comments. and that is the danger of putting your name out there. This is a small world. People know each other. I met peter over a couple of years a few decades ago and LS's description fits with the man I knew.

I have also had the pleasure of meeting Tom Sawyer on a few occasions and he was always open friendly and approachable. He also used deoderant unlike your hero.

I had formed a positive impression of Tom from his campaigns and I was disappointed to see Tom get so Limbaugh-like in his first post. Vichet, I know you roll your eyes when a poster begins with nonsense such as calling an opponent a Marxist. I do the same whether it is Sawyer throwing around Marxist or some idiot on the left calling a Republican a fascist. Words have meaning and we cheapen our dialogue by using them so loosely. I have valued precision in language since my formative days as a Goldwater Girl. Joe McCarthy, Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, et al., abuse the language. Sadly, so does Ladyslipper and so has Tom Sawyer. As to Peter Taber, he wrote a very well-crafted post. I praised his ideas and could care less about the man. I'm not picking a husband, but choosing among competing ideas.

Fausto, I just read the post you attribute to Tom Sawyer. I am not certain that wtsawyer is him. First of all Tom is a better speller than this person. A brief look at the Bangor area alone shows 10 w sawyers none odf which is Tom. Tom has posted here before I have read him, and though I cannot recall his sign-on name it was clearer then that it indeed was Tom.

Vichet, let's hope your right. The income boast by wtsawyer suggested a man of means.