K.O. gives McCain/Palin a richly deserved beatdown.

The idea that tax cuts create jobs has been totally and permanently disproven during the past 8 years.
The idea that cutting government spending will create jobs contradicts the obvious, that laying people off from government jobs or jobs created by government spending (like infrastructure repair) will create more jobs is just nonsense.
Government needs to tax and spend on energy, infrastrucure, etc. and the jobs created will provide billions of dollars which will be spent and which will reinvigorate our industries. We need though to make sure that the jobs it creates are for Americans, not illegal aliens and not Chinese slaves.

Good news for McCain.....

In 2004, two events:

Kerry was ahead 8 points by day in Ohio and lost to Bush by evening.....

37 million evangelicals voted: 87% for Bush, 13% for Kerry. In 2008 40 million evenagelicals are expected to vote.

McCain was not an evangelical puller, but the entrance of Sarah has them energized (with abortion issue and gays getting on their faces with marriage issue). A quiet revolution may be underway.

Prior to February 2008 the liberal media propped Hillary up, saying she was only protecting her INEVITABILITY. Now the same liberals are crowing about Obama's INEVITABILITY.

The last word: Americans may exercise their privilege or right on voting come November 4, but God Almighty will be the one to instate the next President.

God bless America!

I respect both Obama and McCain. Obviously I am not rooting for the liberal. A man of Irish descent, known for his 'hot blood' will become the 44th.

The idea that tax cuts create jobs has been totally and permanently disproven during the past 8 years.

Compare and contrast the tax policies, intrusiveness of state government and business policies of the 3 most productive states right now and the 3 least productive states.

You'll be surprised as to what you discover.

McCain will give tax breaks to the wealthy.
Don't they already own enough yachts?

Obama will tax the wealthy into poverty!
Bully, Obama!

Be Well.

John McCain must not have gotten the memo from the Obamites. What we need are tax increases, not cuts. THAT is what will stimulate the economy.

Lost a lot of money in your equity investments? Sell the rest of them and zip it off to Washington. Your home worth a lot less in the housing crash? Here's a higher tax bill than the one you had last year.

It's patriotic too!

"God Almighty will be the one to instate the next President."

I don't believe God is an American citizen, thus cannot legally vote in the US election.

"It's patriotic too!"

More or less patriotic than, say, ringing up the largest deficits known to man?

"Government needs to tax and spend on energy, infrastrucure, etc. and the jobs created will provide billions of dollars which will be spent and which will reinvigorate our industries. "

A 21st-century revival of the TVA?

Zot, God does not vote; God appoints.

"A 21st-century revival of the TVA?"

If a country doesn't learn from its successes it can't repeat them. The TVA is the perfect analogy in this era when new energy sources are so necessary. The TVA has paid for itself many many times over as will any investment today into alternative energy sources.

"What we need are tax increases, not cuts. THAT is what will stimulate the economy."

I realize you were being sarcastic. So let me get this straight:

When Clinton delivered true surplus budgets to Bush's doorstep, that was a sign we needed tax cuts. When 9/11 happened, that was a sign we needed tax cuts. When the economy recovered, that was a sign we needed tax cuts. And now that supply-side, trickle-on economics has proven to be an abject failure, that's a sign we need tax cuts.

Have I got that right?

Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants.

When Clinton delivered true surplus budgets to Bush's doorstep, that was a sign we needed tax cuts.

I have to laugh at this, clinton and true surplus??

Must be just a political hacking point.

Stealin from social security doesn't make a surplus, it creates the mess it is in now.

Come on people, lets at least be honest.

"Come on people, lets at least be honest."

I dare you to go to factcheck.org and check it out.

During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

"God does not vote; God appoints."

#10 | Posted by takitez

For those of another religious persuasion, Allah appoints.

So in light of your statement:

"Americans may exercise their privilege or right on voting come November 4, but God Almighty will be the one to instate the next President."

It will then not matter for whom the people vote, God will make the choice for us. Is this not a violation of free will?

My take: if God was "personally" involved in the affairs of Man on Planet Earth, then things would be nowhere near as farked up as they are. So why should God take time out now and "appoint" the next President of the United States of America? Wasn't God on the side of Bush and the incursions into the Middle East? Bush (and incidentally, Palin) said as much.

DANNI Brilliance says:

The idea that tax cuts create jobs has been totally and permanently disproven during the past 8 years.

The idea that cutting government spending will create jobs contradicts the obvious, that laying people off from government jobs or jobs created by government spending (like infrastructure repair) will create more jobs is just nonsense.

QUESTION: How many government jobs actually produce something? How many government jobs create products to be sold?

Cutting government spending WILL mean government jobs get cut, but so fucking what? Do you really believe that the only good government-produced-job is a government job? Is this what job-creation means to you? LOL...LOL God, what a dolt!

"I have to laugh at this, clinton and true surplus??"

...delivered true surplus budgets to Bush's doorstep.

Learn to read. The projected budgets Clinton left for Bush included TRUE surplusses, not counting the SS overcollections.

So...we're laughing too, just not with you.

Man has a tendency to go wrong. Man cannot see the future. Man has free will.

God persuades man to His ways for the good of man. Circumstances around man are full of imperfections. Man cannot distinguish this and tends to blame God.

Concerning Iraq war, man only sees the present and blame God for the imperfections --- man cannot see what greater disaster has been averted for the good of man.

BTW, Allah is a theory --- conceived by Muhammad. Muslims pray to a theoretical god and hence do not know the way. (Only when they turn to the God of the Bible --- where God revealed Himself --- Muslims will realize and turn to the true Allah, the Allah of the Bible, not the Allah of the plagiarized Koran). (Koran plagiarized and distorted the Bible).

Clinton changed our manner of measuring inflation and unemployment. He did this to curb spending on Social Security. If prior methods were used the last year would have inflation at 12.9% and unemployment at 14.7%. Quite a record for the Shrub.

Allah is Arabic for god, moron.
The same imaginary, nonexistent, bullshit god of Abraham that you keep bleating about.

Please bring back Niceville;
Much more intelligent than takyermeds; Pathetic troll.

Actually, Allah is Arabic for the pagan "moon god" of pre-Islamic Arabia.

Kerry didn't lose to Shrub any more than Gore did. Our elections are being rigged by computer guru O'Connell. He's the guy that routed White House e-mails through the Rethuglican party headquarters and deleted EVERYTHING. A violation of law, just like election rigging. O'Connell has taken the 5th before a Grand Jury.

Election rigging is really McCain's only chance, but apparently a very real one, since the Democrats don't want to reveal too much about the dark side of our Government.

NUTCASE ACORN ACORN ACORN ACORN ACORN
There I sure showed you.

Election rigging is really McCain's only chance, but apparently a very real one, since the Democrats don't want to reveal too much about the dark side of our Government.

Not unless ACORN is recruiting republican voters...and it ain't. You truly are a nutcase.

Apparently these democrats posting here missed one important fact.

This doesn't include the social security money taken from the pot for paying off other debt, but seems you don't feel the need to include that because those type of stats are not what you want posted.

If you're going to get honest, than do so and stop looking for convoluted ways to make this better than what it is.

When Clinton delivered true surplus budgets to Bush's doorstep, that was a sign we needed tax cuts. When 9/11 happened, that was a sign we needed tax cuts. When the economy recovered, that was a sign we needed tax cuts. And now that supply-side, trickle-on economics has proven to be an abject failure, that's a sign we need tax cuts.

Have I got that right?

#12 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

I dunno. According to the Obama campaign, if you're making $240,000--you need a tax cut too. Has he got it right?

For the hundredth time, I reject the notion that Americans are undertaxed. Clinton and the Gingrich Congress also happened to preside over the smallest growth in government expenditures since Reconstruction. Bush has been a disaster on spending, and Obama promises only more of the same on that front.

I'm impressed by the libs' newfound devotion to fiscal discipline and austerity, when Bushites control the pursestrings. I'll be more impressed if it continues into 2009.

"This doesn't include the social security money taken from the pot for paying off other debt, but seems you don't feel the need to include that because those type of stats are not what you want posted."

Not true, no need to defend Clinton. If he did not really create a surplus (though he did) it just demonstrates that we spent more than the tax revenue collected. Since Ronnie Raygun the federal government has consistently spent more than it took in and proves the need for the wealthy to pay tax rates that were in effect previous to his administration. The argument that his lower taxes benefited the working class through jobs, wages, etc. are disproven by the simple history of the era. Our living standard consistently got higher under the pre-supply side economic theories of Raygun and subsequent presidents. We need to ditch supply side and return to the economic policies that create the largest middle class in the world.
I am hopeful that Obama and a large Democratic majority in Congress will be able to finally make that happen even as the righties scream their fool heads off.

TheOneBS earns yet another F in history of religion.

Government needs to tax and spend on energy

If a country doesn't learn from its successes it can't repeat them. The TVA is the perfect analogy in this era when new energy sources are so necessary. The TVA has paid for itself many many times over as will any investment today into alternative energy sources.

Everyone knows the "alternative energy sources" are simply going to be existing energy providers in new packaging. So if you oppose subsidies for oil companies, why do you support giving giving them money in the form of "green technology" research?

And in a moment of blazing clarity, IraqiBuk redeems himself from many past transgressions.

I'm fascinated by Obama's promise of 5 million green jobs. The entire carbon-based energy system of our country employs less than a third that; is green energy so inefficient that it will require four times more people to run the thing? And is it really his intention to see subsidies go to BP (a foreign company, I may add) and Exxon, just for doing some clever things with biofuels in an era of plunging crude prices?

"I dunno."

Oh, c'mon, RIR, at every turn, your answer has been more tax cuts. Good news, bad news, awful news...all reasons to cut more taxes on the wealthiest. How could you not know, after supporting it for 8 years?

"According to the Obama campaign, if you're making $240,000--you need a tax cut too. Has he got it right?"

No.

"For the hundredth time, I reject the notion that Americans are undertaxed."

We're running massive deficit budgets. Who, exactly, is supposed to pay, since it never seems to be you? Our problem is, we don't have statesmen these days, we have politicians, who get elected by promising everything and paying for nothing. Exactly when in history do we actually pay for what we're getting? Certainly never under a RIR administration.

"Bush has been a disaster on spending..."

And you voted him into, and back into office.

"...and Obama promises only more of the same on that front."

Very little of that will come to pass. The current administration's raping of the Treasury has seen to that.

"I'm impressed by the libs' newfound devotion to fiscal discipline and austerity, when Bushites control the pursestrings."

I felt that way under Clinton, and his deficit budgets, too. Therein lies the difference.

I am hopeful that Obama and a large Democratic majority in Congress will be able to finally make that happen even as the righties scream their fool heads off.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2008-10-15 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag

....Hope is big with you....and you also HOPE for people to die and in a lot of pain. PATHETIC.

TheOneBS earns yet another F in history of religion.

Zithead, I really don't think you know diddly-sqaut about the history of pre-Islamic Arabia, or it's religion. Even a moron can do a search on the web and confirm what I said. I guess that puts you at a level beneath moron. Why am I not surprised?

" Even a moron can do a search on the web and confirm what I said. "

The word "Allah" is the perfect description of the "One God" of monotheism for Jews, Christians and Muslims!

Is "Allah" only for Islam and Muslims?
[No! It is for All Three Abrahamic Faiths.]

"Allah" is the same word used by Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs in their Bible, centuries before Islam came.

On page one [1] of Genesis in the Old Testament, we find the word "Allah" seventeen [17] times.

"Everyone knows the "alternative energy sources" are simply going to be existing energy providers in new packaging."

I don't think everyone knows this. I think it would probably be good for Congress to deal with it before they construct a new monopoly. It has been a long time but the Sherman Antitrust laws do still exist and a trustbuster like TR would probably be welcome in America today. I find it hilarious that we let the oil companies record the biggest profits in history even as our economy swirls in the toilet.
Americans need to get over accusations of "socialism" etc. and deal with reality not slogans.

"and you also HOPE for people to die and in a lot of pain."

You love to bring this up, do you remember any of those who I said that about....because I tell you what....they still deserve it. At least I'm not a fool defending murderers and traitors.

Sure, I remember your hate filled rants. I'm glad you are "At least I'm not a fool defending murderers and traitors." It sounds like that makes you feel better for your ugliness of "HOPING others die and in a lot of pain". Good for you....a bright spot in your life.

I find it hilarious that we let the oil companies record the biggest profits in history even as our economy swirls in the toilet.
Americans need to get over accusations of "socialism" etc. and deal with reality not slogans.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2008-10-15 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Stop buying oil then dumbass, stop buying foreign made cares too while you're at it. Help a brother out for once.

"It sounds like that makes you feel better for your ugliness of "HOPING others die and in a lot of pain"."

Sorry I believe in justice. No sympathy for war criminals and traitors and disapproval from your ilk just makes me laugh. As if you have any moral authority to judge anyone. Hilarious.

Posted by Zithead:

The word "Allah" is the perfect description of the "One God" of monotheism for Jews, Christians and Muslims!

Is "Allah" only for Islam and Muslims?
[No! It is for All Three Abrahamic Faiths.]

"Allah" is the same word used by Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs in their Bible, centuries before Islam came.

On page one [1] of Genesis in the Old Testament, we find the word "Allah" seventeen [17] times.

LOL...LOL. Hey dumbshit! Do a broader search on Pre-Islamic pagan religions, and quit trying to come across as learned. The word "Allah" is NOT Hebrew in origin, nor Christian. Nor did it arise concurrently with Islam. The fact that Arab Christians and Arab Jews have used the name "Allah" for God is a moot point.

Maybe you should also look up the definition of "anachronism." It might help you better understand the bonehead assumption/mistake you're making!

BONEHEAD!

McCain could not pass gas with a Dem congress.

Your #42 post is just hilarious. So you are THE moral authority.

P.S. Stop being hypocritical and stop screwing over your American brothers/sisters and quit buying foreign manufactured vehicles from companies headquartered in other countries. Please, espouse your views on the death penalty now. Curious as to your response.

The idea that tax cuts create jobs has been totally and permanently disproven during the past 8 years.

Compare and contrast the tax policies, intrusiveness of state government and business policies of the 3 most productive states right now and the 3 least productive states.

You'll be surprised as to what you discover.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008

thank you jeff........but of course they will just scoff that off

remember when in a dem debate or interview obama didnt even know that the less tax you pay., the more income you keep and the more you spend
and one of the best quotes I have heard is

"I have never been hired for a job by a poor person"

but the euopean socialist really doesnt care about that, does he?

you take away a tax cut from a corporation......thier taxes go up

DANNI...............DO YOU REALLY think that corporation will be paying that extra tax????????

it gets passed oN EACH AND EVERY TIME TO US........as in me and you...........dont you see that

lets tax the shit out of the oil companies and make them pay more...........

so then........who makes UP THE DIFFERENCE

instead of paying 2.66 a gallon like I just did, it will go back up over 3 bucks to make it up........

what is so hard to understand here??????

and of course this brings up another LIE from obama ...in both debates he brought up FOUR BILLION in NEW tax cuts for oil companies and that was proven wrong on factcheck.........

"what is so hard to understand here?"

For you, it's obvious...The Theory of Elasticity.

"I'm fascinated by Obama's promise of 5 million green jobs. The entire carbon-based energy system of our country employs less than a third that; is green energy so inefficient that it will require four times more people to run the thing?"

#33 | Posted by rightisright

I don't think I've ever seen any sort of explanation as to where 5 million "green" jobs will come from.

I'm inclined to think he just pulled that number out of his ass to make the hoping morons feel warm and fuzzy inside, but I won't speak too soon.

Anyone know where/how he's going to create 5 million green jobs?

I'm inclined to think he just pulled that number out of his ass to make the hoping morons feel warm and fuzzy inside

you just chraracterized his entire campaign and the amazing thing is the millions of people who are being duped by this ADMITTED SOCIALIST.........

the left never ceases to amaze me.
before you know it we might read on here that one of them actually admires the TERRORISTS AYERS

OOPS>>>>>>>>>>>>>TOO LATE>................

and THATS The kind of thinking from the left that we will be getting in an obama administration

which is WHY HIS ASSOCIATIONS MATTER

okat dan

go ahead and bring up keating and then I will remind you that he didnt do enough wrong to be removed or indicted or anything of the sort and in FACT the prosecuter said that he shouldnt have even been there ALONG WITH OBAMA ADVISOR.......JOHN GLENN...........

"DANNI...............DO YOU REALLY think that corporation will be paying that extra tax????????"

Considering taxes are computed after profit is figured the answer would be yes.

I have a question for you BLT.
If the American economy does fall into depression with millions jobless and penniless, hunger becoming a common problem, etc. then what would you do. Would you still defend obscene profits made by the few? Are you so loyal to an ideology that you would watch American families suffer, children starve, students go uneducated?? Where do you draw the line between adherance to an ideology and concern for fellow Americans?

#53

Beyond repair!!!!

"which is WHY HIS ASSOCIATIONS MATTER"

If his association with Ayers matters (which it doesn't and the American people obviously don't think it does) then McBush's association with Gordon Liddy should matter much more and Obama hasn't brought it up once as far as I've heard.
Issues matter, McBush can't campaign on issues so personality is all he thinks he has.

"bring up keating and then I will remind you that he didnt do enough wrong to be removed or indicted or anything of the sort and in FACT the prosecuter said that he shouldnt have even been there"

The prosecutor in the Ayers case said Obama shouldn't be linked at all, and thought it was preposterous.

So is that going to be your barometer, or are you a hypocrite?

Oh, c'mon, RIR, at every turn, your answer has been more tax cuts. Good news, bad news, awful news...all reasons to cut more taxes on the wealthiest. How could you not know, after supporting it for 8 years?

* * * *

Ah. The old "cut taxes on the wealthiest"--as if you didn't get a tax cut, along with me.

I don't discriminate as to who deserves tax cuts when federal and municipal governments collectively haul in 35% of GDP. Way too much. The answer is to cut spending. I don't see the choice as between tax-and-spend or borrow-and-spend. The problem--always has been--was the spend side of the equation. That is one of the things Clinton had right, along with a Republican Congress to keep his feet to the fire, and vice versa.

There's little positive news to hope for, given a spendthrift President Obama, and a supermajority of liberal Dems like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. They're already responsible for a $2 trillion bill from Fannie and Freddie, but guess what?--they'll win re-election anyhow. Dems are funny that way.

What does "Country First" mean?

Sounds like Socialism to me, John and Sarah!

"given a spendthrift President Obama"

He isn't even elected yet, it is amazing that you can already label him a "spendthrift."

I just take him for his word. If he's not going to be dramatically increasing spending, then he's lying about doing so. You tell me which.

Zot, God does not vote; God appoints.

#10 | Posted by takitez

Sorry-asswipe-God has no say in matters of Mankind's WILL.
Get over yourself.

If ACORN ain't recruiting GOpers, why was John "Igotaconfessiontomake" Mccadaver their 2006 keynote speaker?

Maybe the Brotherhood of Priest Killers and Nun rapers couldn't afford his speaking fees?

So if you oppose subsidies for oil companies, why do you support giving giving them money in the form of "green technology" research?

#32 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

I believe that oil companies, like any business or person, act in their own best interest. A strong case has not been made for oil companies to invest in and deploy green energy technology. Therefore, I would like to see the oil companies divested of any "green technology" that they may have.

"You tell me which."

Spendthrift indicates someone who irresponsibly spends, I don't consider his proposals irresponsible. You probably consider FDR a spendthrift. Hell he wasted all that money winning WWII.

FDR didn't waste any money. He had some fine camps built to house a very large amount of AMERICAN CITIZENS that happened to be of the Japanese race. Your tax dollars at work. Bravo FDR, bravo. (sarc.)

"You tell me which."

Too complicated of a question RIR. Danni can't answer unless inserting a GWB or Ronald Reagan deflection.

wait for it.

"the Japanese race"

There's no such thing.

"He [FDR] had some fine camps built to house a very large amount of AMERICAN CITIZENS that happened to be of the Japanese race."

I wonder how many people know that FDR did this because of the insistence of the military.

" If he's not going to be dramatically increasing spending, then he's lying about doing so."

They're both lying, if they're pretending they'll be two nickels to rub together after this administration's looting of the Treasury.

EBERLY seems either incapable of reading or unable to understand anything except a simple yes or no answer. And too bad human rights defender Rideon wasn't there to defend all them Japanese folks....as if...

Fire up the printing presses boys, we need to print some more money, we're running out.

---McSame-----

Anyone know where/how he's going to create 5 million green jobs?

Guess not.

Yes, allah is Arabic for 'god', just as 'theos' is Greek for god. Greek philosophers freely used theos to identify with mythically divine characters.

The Bible employ the same word 'theos' for God.

That said, the allah of the Koran is simply a theoretical god. The Allah of the Bible is the one true God that the Constitution of America recognizes.

Let's see.

F in religious history.
F in American history.
F in reading comprehension.

Congratulations, fuckwit, you won the trifecta!

Zatoichi is going out of his mind: he just graded himself 3 Fs.

Please get some sleep and get away from the internet for a while.

Looks like a second F in reading comprehension for takyermeds.

That's four.

1796 - 1797

There are some other good histories of the three Abrahamic religions.

Zatoichi, you are confusing truth with claim --- The Yahweh of Abraham is the Elohim of the Bible. The Koran is a plagiarised version claiming to follow the same God.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the God of the Bible, and by extension, the same founding Fathers allowed prayer to the God of the Bible when the Constitution was deliberated and passed. Hence the God of the Bible, the Christian God became the cornerstone of this nation called United States of America.

Earlier, someone seeking high political office was required to be a member of a church in good standing. Godless liberals should never forget that.

Takeitez

This country was not founded as a Christian nation. Thinking that it was founded as a Christian nation is unAmerican. If you want a religious state--move to Iran--they worship the same God---they just call it Allah. The Old Testament is the same book as the Koran---same god--no difference.

B-Bob,

This nation is a secular nation by design, but it was laced with thick Christian principles. You should read the stories of the Pilgrims and the early governors when America was claimed as a British colony. All filled with Christian ideals and Christian enthusiasm.

I am sorry to see your enormous ignorance of the Bible and the Koran. I guess you have either never read them or been misled this far and could care less about the truth.

Takeyermeds lies out his ass once again: "The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the God of the Bible"

1. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, shit-for-brains.

2. It speaks of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

"ravings of a maniac"

Tom was prescient.

You forgot to mention CREATOR in the declaration. The word Bible was not mentioned, but there was no doubt the God they reffered to was the God of the Bible.

Hint: prayers to the God of the Bible were sought and received in many of these historic meetings.

Also the passage you quoted (Jefferson's Autobiography) indicates the foundation of Christianity impacting the Founding Fathers --- only they projected to include freedom of religion to extend to people of other faiths.

Inaugural speech of Kennedy..... (referring to the God of the Bible)

Almighty God.

.... the rights of man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hnad of God.

.... asking His blessing and His help.... here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

If we were a truly Christian nation there wouldn't be a single person allowed to live in poverty.

At least that's what the namesake said should happen

For some reason too many "Christian" Republicans in America take the Pharisee's side and concentrate on helping the moneychangers rather than the poor

If we were a truly Christian nation there wouldn't be a single person allowed to live in poverty....
For some reason too many "Christian" Republicans in America take the Pharisee's side and concentrate on helping the moneychangers rather than the poor.
Funny, I see the moneychangers are the guys trying to redistribute some elses money. You know because its 'fair'.