Tim knew before the question was asked that everyone on stage claims to be a practicing Christian.

"And behold the Pumpkinhead, for he shall burst into flames from sheer wingnuttery."

Reality 6:66

What in the blue, freaking hell does a candidate's favorite Bible verse have to do with anything?

Russert, you're a tool.

What ever happened to that little provision in our constitution that there shall be no religious test for those running for office?

Didn't Russert also ask candidates about baseball?

Doesn't that mean he was trying to say that Democrats need to prove their love of baseball?

Here's how they should answer it:

"Thou shall not kill."
Speaking of Iraq .....

If only one of them would have taken Russert to task on the ridiculousness of the question. Even crazy Gravel feel into the trap. Lame.

So why did the candidates answer the question. Why didn't any of them have the courage to say to Russert "Look, I believe in God. I read the bible. But the question is offensive, because ....... and I am not going to answer it. Will we ever have a candidate again who has courage? POne who will be a leader, instead of a lamb?

Or, Jesus' love of some gay folks:

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." Luke 17:34-36.

Kucinich and Gravel are the only two real presidential candidates who are FOR America an not for world domination. Of course that means they will be kept on the bottom by the money/power candidates.

Curly rocks! Thanks LA Confidential.

i emailed him last night regarding this question:

Mr. Russert,

I’m writing you about the debate you recently hosted in Dartmouth, New Hampshire.

You asked a question, which i felt was inappropriate. The United States Constitution states that ” no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

So, i think your question asking the candidates about their favorite Bible verse crossed the line sir. I really think that the faith and religion of these candidates has absolutely no business being discussed in this way. You presented them with a religious test and I think you need to apologize for that.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy. You disappoint me.

Should have quoted leviticus 24:11-16 and said they absolutely believe that farmers that plants two crops in the same field should be stoned. I am sure that would have gone over well...

Mike @ 16:

So why did the candidates answer the question. Why didn't any of them have the courage to say to Russert "Look, I believe in God. I read the bible. But the question is offensive, because ....... and I am not going to answer it. Will we ever have a candidate again who has courage? POne who will be a leader, instead of a lamb?

Or better yet a candidate with the courage to say "look I don't believe in God. The whole concept is ridiculous. I would rather quote Shakespeare than the Bible because it contains more universal truths and literary merit."

Unfortunately such an admission is likely to doom a presidential candidacy in this country brimming with superstitious fanatics.

Plisko @ 8:

What ever happened to that little provision in our constitution that there shall be no religious test for those running for office?

What is this word 'constitution' you speak of?

I'm disgusted at the candidates for answering. The only correct answer to that question is to say "that's an improper question."

TIMMY! Yeah, disgusting, but you know what, Hillary? I don't think the golden rule is actually a Biblical verse. Is it? I think that's from earlier pagan civilizations. Help me out on this one, anybody.

Being a "non-believer", should that question have been asked of me, I would have responded:

"I do not know any Bible verses, but the "story" I am most impressed with out of the
Good Book is one that religious folks believe; being that man and the dinasours co-existed
together only 6,000 years ago.."

Not to change the subject (I agree wholeheartedly that the question was out of line) but...

Hey Dennis? St. Francis was an 11th century noble and founder of the Order of Friars Minor. He isn't in the Bible. Good on you for having a quote imploring peace, but you could have gone with Jesus' "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Heretic @ 36:

TIMMY! Yeah, disgusting, but you know what, Hillary? I don't think the golden rule is actually a Biblical verse. Is it? I think that's from earlier pagan civilizations. Help me out on this one, anybody.

The Golden Rule is something that appears in one form or another in just about every religion, hence the reason why it's called the "Golden Rule". When Jesus cited his version of it, he never specifically say it was "The Golden Rule".

I think he got the idea from Larry King when he asked the same question to Paris Hilton. So it really wasnt a sincere question, it was an attmept to try to trip them up. They handled it pretty well though, and it is something the Dem nominee is going to have to do to win. Youve got to throw in a little religious bullshit, even if you dont believe it.

CD @ 10:

Didn't Russert also ask candidates about baseball?

Doesn't that mean he was trying to say that Democrats need to prove their love of baseball?

I agree that a person's religion or lack of religion should not matter but if they don't like baseball and know the ERA leaders and BA of David Ortiz with men in scoring position they have no right to be president.

#24-Freaktown

Very well written letter. That is the basic response that all the candidates, Democratic or Republican, should give to an asinine question like that. One also has to wonder if that was an attempt by Russert to demonstrate how he could wear his own religious beliefs upon his public sleeve. As you correctly point out, one's religious point of view has absolutely no business being paraded in a political forum. The people and the political leaders in Europe are no doubt looking askance at this desire by America's politicians and the media in this country to inject religion so unnecessarily into the public discourse.

"There is no God" ~ Psalms 14:1

An atheist or jew could have a favourite passage anyway. Studing the bible academically is important to understanding history and art and (american) culture.

Russert is a bona fide chickens**t. He needs to retire to a rocking chair on the nursing home porch and let his last 3 brain cells finish rotting in his thick skull.

I can hardly stand to look at him. He's on par w/BOR and Lush Limbo: an idiotic jerk.

Am I clear ;-)

The question was completely inappropriate, but then Tim Russert is a shill for the Republican party.

BAC

Boot @ 5:

Yeah. how about the fact that not everyone gets to answer the questions. Nice framing on Kucinich and Gravel asking about losing the mayorship and bankruptcy. Geez, they really don't want to give either one of those guys any airtime.

Are you kidding, those two are the only two on that stage that would really unravel their con, they want American to stand for what American stands for Honor and Justice...not this petty crap the other candidates on both sides of the isle are standing for. the ideal ticket would be Kurcinich and Richardson (in either order) but in this idol nation I don't think enough people would be moved to vote for the ideal ticket.

No candidate mentioned Luke 19:27?

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." -Jesus Christ

Hmm, maybe this is the side of Jesus that Bush worships...

57 Dahgrostab’ph-r-i - dude I can't type when I get this passionate about something, American should have been America (both times :( )

Does anyone seriously think that the US would vote for someone that did not actively portray themselves as Christian in enough numbers to make them President?

I wish that it were possible but I do not think that at the moment it is.

rob in toronto @ 63:

Does anyone seriously think that the US would vote for someone that did not actively portray themselves as Christian in enough numbers to make them President?

I wish that it were possible but I do not think that at the moment it is.

I think you're correct, though the zeitgeist is shifting. More and more of us non-theists -- one of the largest minority segments of the American population, by the way -- are speaking openly now.

enor @ 26:

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy. You disappoint me.

Timmeh is living down to my every expectation. He is a scalp-worm.

dilly @ 62:

" all the fat is the LORD's." --Leviticus 3:16

My favorite verse, I'm a *gasp* atheist!

All the fat is the Lord's, eh? I knew the U.S. was BLESSED!!

For anyone interested, the Secular Coalition of America is a lobbying organization for non-theists.

Timmeh and Jeff Gannon seem to have alot in common.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanliness. So you also outwardly apear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." [Mt 23:27-28].

Leviticus 27:6

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

Numbers 3:15-16

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord.

Exodus 21:22-23

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.

A fetus or an infant less than one month old is not a person, and abortion is not murder, according to the infallible word of God.

HumboldtBlue @ 72:

The smart answer should have been ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

And ... "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

HumboldtBlue has a point. I am really insulted by this stuff. Although I agree with him on the smart answer, I would probably feel that I needed to step Russert back from his premise and his clear lack of understanding. I don't believe that could be done with such a short statement. I also would have a very hard time stopping myself from disabusing Russert from his petty gotchas and Constitutional ignorance. I would be moved to do so with extreme prejudice.

Why, why, why do the Democrats allow their debates be moderated by the likes of the Tim Russert's of the world? Why do the Democratic candidates meekly submit to this format? If they are so gutless that they cannot stand up to the Media and demand the debate be run on their terms, how will they have the guts to run a country? Over and over, they allow these "debates" to be framed by the corporate, right-wing media.

We need Muslims and Jews in the oval office too. Let's turn this country into a representative theocracy, instead of the Christian autocracy it has become.

Seriously though, what does one's favorite bible verse have anything to do with running for office? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Why can't these f@#&% people get it through their heads.

John 11:35: "Jesus wept"

Man, I wish one of them had the wit to say that one, and with great emphasis. Timmer's face would have fallen off.

Ken Clean Air Systems @ 30:

Mike @ 16:

So why did the candidates answer the question. Why didn't any of them have the courage to say to Russert "Look, I believe in God. I read the bible. But the question is offensive, because ....... and I am not going to answer it. Will we ever have a candidate again who has courage? POne who will be a leader, instead of a lamb?

Or better yet a candidate with the courage to say "look I don't believe in God. The whole concept is ridiculous. I would rather quote Shakespeare than the Bible because it contains more universal truths and literary merit."

Unfortunately such an admission is likely to doom a presidential candidacy in this country brimming with superstitious fanatics.

Shakespeare would've made a good source to quote...

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

At least he didn't ask how well to list the strengths and weaknesses of their wives...

*yeesh*

Tim's after Bill Donohue's job.

Tim: "Go ye my brother, into the World of the unworthy and spread the false words of
your leader so that all will know that ye are not of this human race." Timothy: 213,
Article 15, Section 666, subsection 911, para. 123(y)

..and verily did each candidate in kind attempt to answer this question of questions put before them by Timothy the Enabler.Thus did Saint Hillary fumble the holy poser put before her,desperately searching her memory for anything that sounded vaguely Biblical...

You blame Tim for asking this question that smacks of Republican framing, but what about each candidate, who blindly fell into the frame without nary a comment or complaint?

Media Concepts @ 98:

but what about each candidate, who blindly fell into the frame without nary a comment or complaint?

"Be gentle oh holy person; judge not others for ye too shall be judged"....or some such
nonsense.

How about Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". That should speak to everybody except maybe the atheists. It'a also the first mention of baseball: "In the Big Inning ...". :)

I know a Bible verse!

Its called "THERE SHALL BE NO RELIGIOUS TEST FOR OFFICE" and its from a Bible called the US Constitution and it is the only Bible that matters in this country.

Russert is a bona fide asshole.

You should learn to "turn the other cheek".
Certainly when being skin frisked at the airport while grasping your ankles...*rimshot*

Boring Scott @ 4:

"And behold the Pumpkinhead, for he shall burst into flames from sheer wingnuttery."

Reality 6:66

"Beware the Chimperor for he comes to thee as a man of God and he will drag thy nation and thy people down to the depths of hell"

Reality 6:66:2

faith = Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Where is the candidate that will stand up once and for all and dispell myth. Why should anyone respect the god fearing? It's dispicable that a pre-requisite for presidential candicy is having a religious foundation.

From The Holy Bible, 2 Kings 2:23-24:

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them"

oh really!

Biggus Diggus @ 99:

"Thou should beware the man others call... Pumpkinhead."

Russert is a Potatohead. Yuk, yuk.

Sorry, it's late.

There is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed. The Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels. The early epistles (the earliest of which predates the earliest Gospel Mark by a few decades) attributed to Paul and other Christian authors make no mention of this historical Jesus of Nazareth and of the Gospels. The details and characters we have come to know as the “historical” story of Jesus are absent from their writings. Mary, Joseph, King Herod, John the Baptist, the miracles that Jesus was said to have performed, Jesus’s ministry on earth, entrance into Jerusalem, Ponchus Pilate, the Jewish mob, Jesus’s trial. Complete silence on all of it from the earliest Christian writers. Paul and the authors of the early epistles also never quote Jesus directly.

The only events that Paul and the other early epistle authors reference are the following three events: 1) Christ on the cross, 2) the resurrection, 3) the ascension… and these events are never placed on earth. Paul's Jesus existed in the "higher" spiritual plane of existence, which is consistent with the cultural beliefs of the time (i.e., that there existed a “lower” plane of existence, earth, and a “higher” spiritual plane of existence.). Paul was obviously a Gnostic. To the Gnostics, these Jesus stories were not meant to be taken literally as occuring here on earth, and this was explained to new initiates into the faith once they reached a certain level of spiritual understanding. As Christianity spread throughout the ancient world and became disconnected from its Eastern roots, Christian literalism overtook Gnosticism.

Despite what we are led to believe, there are no first-person accounts of Jesus. The original Gospel authors were anonymous, and only later were the authors named to give them the authority of first-person accounts. The Gospel authors, whoever they were, borrowed heavily from pagan myths as well as the Hebrew scripture. Born of a virgin; prophesied by a star; being baptized; water to wine at a marriage; 12 disciples; accused of heresy; crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; resurrected on the third day. All of these details of the Jesus story and more were old hat and had appeared numerous times before in pagan myths that predated the Gospels.

As far as the historical record, although there are a long list of historians writing during the period that Jesus was supposed to have lived, there is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second-century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of first-century) can be dismissed as later insertions by Christian interpolators.

I will be announcing my candidacy for presidency shortly. lol.

Frank you know damn well that just because there aren't any surviving records of a person or an event doesn't mean they didn't exist.

That question was wholey inappropriate. I just can't believe how far backwards our country has gone over the last 6 years. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. It seems like the country as a whole was more forward thinking in the 60-70s! It's really depressing when your worst fears about a dumbass president ane republican rule come true day after day after day.

I said that there is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed. Lacking any evidence, a rational person witholds belief. "Revealed" truth doesn't quite cut it.

There are certainly plenty of surviving records from that time period, just none that give any real credence to a historical Jesus.

Scholars Timothy Freke (degree in philosophy, authority on world mysticism, internationally published author of twenty books,) and Peter Gandy (M.A. in classical civilizations, specialty in ancient Pagan Mystery religions) have recently compared the Osiris-Dionysus savior god of the Pagan Mystery religions with the Christian savior god Jesus. They were unprepared for the degree of similarity that they found between the two figures. Below is a summary of their conclusion in their own words.

Before quoting their conclusion, it will be helpful if I first define a couple of the terms used below:

Mysteries or Pagan Mysteries – The ancient Pagan Mystery religions of the Mediterranean that pre-date Christianity, in some cases by thousands of years.

Osiris-Dionysus – The savior god of the ancient Pagan Mystery religions. He was known as Osiris to the ancient Egyptians. Pythagoras (of Mathematics fame) brought the Osiris myth to ancient Greece in the late seventh-century BCE, upon which the minor deity Dionysus was promoted to his “savior god” role. Also known as Attis in Asia Minor, Adonis in Syria, Bacchus in Italy, and Mithras in Persia.

Freke’s and Gandy’s conclusion:

CONCLUSION

Either the Devil really has perfected the art of diabolical mimicry or there is a mystery to solve here. Let's review the evidence:

*Jesus is the savior of mankind, God made man, the Son of God equal with the Father; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is born of a mortal virgin who after her death ascends to heaven and is honored as a divine being; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is born in a cave on December 25 or January 6, as is Osiris-Dionysus. [My comments: The word usually translated as “stable” in the gospels is katalemna – literally, “temporary shelter” or “cave”. It was a widespread early Christian tradition that Jesus was born in a cave.]

*The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star; so is the birth of Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which was shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is visited by the Magi, who are followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

*The Magi bring Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which a sixth-century BCE Pagan tells us is the way to worship God.

*Jesus is baptized, a ritual practiced for centuries in the Mysteries.

*The holy man who baptizes Jesus with water has the same name as a Pagan god of water and is born on the summer solstice celebrated as a Pagan water festival.

*Jesus offers his followers elemental baptisms of water, air, and fire, as did the Pagan Mysteries.

*Jesus is portrayed as a quiet man with long hair and a beard; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus turns water into wine at a marriage on the same day that Osiris-Dionysus was previously believed to have turned water into wine at a marriage.

*Jesus heals the sick, exorcises demons, provides miraculous meals, helps fishermen make miraculous catches of fish, and calms the water for his disciples; all of these marvels had previously been performed by Pagan sages.

*Like the sages of the Mysteries, Jesus is a wandering wonder-worker who is not honored in his home town.

*Jesus is accused of licentious behavior, as were the followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is not at first recognized as a divinity by his disciples, but then is transfigured before them in all his glory; the same is true of Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is surrounded by 12 disciples; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while crowds wave branches, as does Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is a just man unjustly accused of heresy and bringing a new religion, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus attacks hypocrites, stands up to tyranny, and willingly goes to his death predicting he will rise again in three days, as do Pagan sages.

*Jesus is betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, a motif found in the story of Socrates.

*Jesus is equated with bread and wine, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus' disciples symbolically eat bread and drink wine to commune with him, as do the followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus is hung on a tree or crucified, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus dies as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world; so does Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus' corpse is wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh, as is the corpse of Osiris-Dionysus.

*After his death Jesus descends to hell, then on the third day resurrects before his disciples and ascends into heaven, where he is enthroned by God and waits to reappear at the end of time as a divine judge, as does Osiris-Dionysus.

*Jesus was said to have died and resurrected on exactly the same dates that the death and resurrection of Osiris-Dionysus were celebrated.

*Jesus' empty tomb is visited by three women followers. Osiris-Dionysus also has three women followers who visit an empty cave.

*Through sharing in his passion Jesus offers his disciples the chance to be born again, as does Osiris-Dionysus.

Discounting the diabolical mimicry argument, as all sane people must, how are we to explain these extraordinary similarities between Pagan myth and the story of Jesus?

The first possibility we considered was that the true biography of Jesus had been overlaid with Pagan mythology at a later date. This is a common idea often advanced to account for those aspects of the Jesus story that seem obviously mythical, such as the virgin birth. But we had found so many resemblances between the myths of Osiris-Dionysus and the supposed biography of Jesus that this theory seemed inadequate. If all the elements of the Jesus story that had been prefigured by Pagan myths were later accretions, what would be left of the "real" Jesus? If this theory is true then the Jesus we know is a myth and the historical man has been completely eclipsed.

The other possibility that occurred to us was more radical and challenging. Could it be that the story of Jesus was actually yet another version of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus? If we had not been brought up in a Christian culture, would we ever have interpreted the incredible stories related by the gospels as anything other than profound myths? No one believes the myths of Osiris-Dionysus are literally true, so why should we take as historical fact the same events related in a Jewish setting?

Not knowing quite what to believe, we turned our attention to Jesus' spiritual teachings, wondering if here we might glimpse something of the man beneath the myth. [My comments: the authors also found additional striking similarities between the pagan teachings and the teachings of Jesus. In other words, the “message” wasn’t new either.]

Frank @ 120:

CD @ 116:

Frank you know damn well that just because there aren't any surviving records of a person or an event doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but "revealed" truth just doesn't cut it for me.

The stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Bacchus, Mithras and numerous other "savior" gods are all uncannily similar to the story of Jesus. There are about 20 different points of comparison. As long as evidence isn't a requirement for you to believe in something, why not believe in them? It's a rhetorical question that we all know the answer to: because you were indoctrinated at an early age into the Christian religion.

You don't know shit about me.

Candidates indulge these insulting idiots when they answer a question like that.

And the bezan shall be huge and black, and the eyes thereof red with the blood of living creatures, and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout thelands, there'll be a great rubbing of parts. Yeeah...

Shoot. #86 beat me to it. :)

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages have touched me. Marinara be upon him! RAmen!"

This question should have a two part answer:

I'm not going to order torture of this person until I am convinced he has the desired information. Why do you think so? Did another person give you his name to stop you cutting his fingers off? And that person was fingered by another torture victim?

Why should I believe a person who is willing to strap explosives around hos body or fly an airplane into a building is going to give up any valid information, no matter what we do to him/her?

This is a "Bait and Switch" argument; it starts with the proposition that we "know" the subject has the info, then switches to torture of a person "suspected" of having information. This may be a dirty trick, but more likely conservatives are to mentally deficient to understand the difference.

McDuff (Post 133),

You are sooooo spot-on! Let's remove swearing oaths with a hand on the Bible in court, or when taking political office, or when becomming commissioned as a US military officer as well!

Religion belongs in the private, personal domain.

Free Thinkers, Unite!

Richard Peterson @ 132:

This is a "Bait and Switch" argument; it starts with the proposition that we "know" the subject has the info, then switches to torture of a person "suspected" of having information.

That's what happens when you've got fear mongering leadership on both sides of the aisle and in the oval office and an entire nation that watches way too many episodes of "24" and brainwashed by the media into thinking rapture is just around the corner. Give me a break.

Barrack should have got medieval on Tim's fat ass with Ezekiel 25:17 :

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!!!

Religion is really beginning to get on my f'in last nerve!

We are doomed if this is the trend even in the liberal democratic party!

I was hoping one of them would choose not to answer such a blatantly ignorant question! Kucinich? Hell no! You pulled out your little verse sheet? Say it isn't so!

Who's running for president outside of our sold-out two party system?

Jeez. Really inappropriate. He's essentially holding them hostage, too.

It'd be fine, I think, to talk about religion in a sit-down interview in a more open-ended fashion, but this sound bite format is shallow. I found their answers interesting, actually, but Russert is unsettling. He should know better. He really is adopting a GOP framing on this. Prove you're religious! I still think his ticking time bomb question is more asinine, though - well, on one level, at least.

Biden nailed this one.

Here's mine:

"BE DOERS OF THE WORD AND NOT HEARERS ONLY."
John 1:22

.

I agree with Biden on this one. It is a cautionary passage that must be heeded.

.

The questions that they ask during all these debates are just stupid BS. I would like to see something like health care, why does the American public need a new system, is not the system that you politicians have good enough for the public? I am sure that the politicians are ready to wait in line for medical care. How about SS, perhaps if you politicians paid into it and did not get these big fat retirements and we were not hell bent on trying to give every illegal benefits the system just might be solvent. Also if you are ageist the war and want it to stop then why have you not got the balls to vote to shut off the spending? Why do you want to tax the rich, you are rich and you expect the American public to believe that you are going to take money out of your pocket? Hell if you want to pay more then donate to the IRS all you want I for one am tired of paying for the governments mistakes and worthless politicians. Wake up America and do not re-elect anyone!!

My favourite verse in in the soon to be released, updated, 2007 version: Edwin 2:1 Wherein Jesus came down and said, "Shut the f#ck up Timmeh."