Getting a Point Across (a Greta rant)

No matter what you believe and how passionate you are about something, there will be someone with an opposing view. I like Peppermint Stick ice-cream and you may hate it. I want to try to instill the same values to my children (1 a future Politician) that I carry out on this blog. I try to run a fairly PG-rated blog as I feel more good than bad will come from that. I try to make my points without being hateful & inflammatory or disrespectful to others. I loathe the ACLU because I feel they hurt America every day by stripping it’s core values away from the Constitution and worrying more about the bad people than the good. Why am I wrtiting this today? Well, there are several reasons.
1. Because I want this to remain a respectful blog with heated, healthy debate with all walks of life visiting, contributing & debating. I now have several diverse contributors & things can get pretty heated.
2. This week I have seen a couple of people I blog with, who went out and really pushed some buttons in a way I never would, get bad repercussions. That doesn’t mean I will ignore their blogs in the future. For those that want the 411 on this situation, a couple of blogs have been “hijacked” this week. Their blogs were hacked & an Arabic message was replaced with their content.
3. I blog with & now contribute to the Cotillion, Stop the ACLU, RepubliJews, Milbloggers & tons of blogs I just love for one reason or another & some I cringe at when I read, others make me laugh. That keeps me on my toes.
4. Constantly referring to the other political party from which you disagree with hate foaming from your mouth, will never help get your point across.
5. Do I know what the hell I am talking about? Probably not. Do I research every post for hours & have journalistic expectations? No. Who am I to make this rant? Just a blogger in a world of nuts, trolls, psychos, criminals & alot of wonderful people.
6. I think attacks on the blogosphere & cyber-space will continue and intensify quickly.
7. Staying under the radar isn’t what I am talking about, but picking appropriate battles.
8. Hooah! Stick around, this blog is here to stay!

This is linked to the Stop the ACLU blogburst. A blogburst is when a bunch of people for a cause blog the same day about a subject, link together & turn Google upside down. Google ACLU & you will get a Stop the ACLU reference for sure!

16 Responses to Getting a Point Across (a Greta rant)

  1. Truckymedic April 13, 2006 at 8:06 pm #

    Hacked? Wow, we’re getting to somebody.

  2. Meg April 13, 2006 at 9:34 pm #


    Stop the ACLU deserves to be hacked by some Political Science teachers who teach Hamilton. They mis-quote him on a weekley basis! I’m going to start a web-sight called:
    “Teach the “Stop the ACLU” what the Founding Fathers/Constitution actually said!”

    Unfortunately, I can barely use a word processing program. 🙁

  3. brainhell April 13, 2006 at 9:53 pm #

    I’ve never given money to the ACLU, but I’m considering it, given what I’ve learned in your blog about the campaign against them. Maybe I should Google ‘Stop the ACLU’ and donate as many dollars as hits? It’s clear to me that the ACLU seeks to protect our Constituion and way of life, and often does. But that often means defending unavory people or causes — thus inflaming unsavory political movements.

  4. brainhell April 13, 2006 at 9:57 pm #

    1,600,000 hits! I can’t even donate that many pennies! Sure are a lot of misguided pople in the world.

  5. Greta (Hooah Wife) April 13, 2006 at 11:05 pm #

    BH – have you ever thought that maybe it is you that is misguided? I love pushing your buttons!!!

  6. brainhell April 13, 2006 at 11:25 pm #

    That’s one of the things that keeps me on track — I first ask myself ‘How might I be mistaken?’ I love it when you touch my buttons. I mean push.

  7. donsingleton April 14, 2006 at 12:53 am #

    I assume you have heard of tax credits

    I believe that in the case of the ACLU we should have tax debits. For every dollar that someone donates to ACLU it should increase their tax liability by $10, to be spent defending the frivilous lawsuits the ACLU files.

  8. brainhell April 14, 2006 at 1:01 am #

    > I first ask myself ‘How might I be mistaken?’

    But not everyone follows this process.

  9. Meg April 14, 2006 at 1:18 am #

    Don, Ever heard of freedom of speech? You can’t punish people for supporting the ACLU. And if you tried to pass a law like that, the ACLU would kick your behind in court, and then they would make you pay their court costs.

  10. Crazy Politico April 14, 2006 at 1:53 am #

    When people ask why I hate the ACLU, I generally let them know that their corruption of
    the thougts of Jefferson are a big reason. For instance, his famous “wall of separation”
    between church and state had nothing to do with government never mingling with religion,
    or God. Only endorsing a single religion, or banning any.

    Folks who doubt that should visit his memorial and read the other quotes, such as:
    God, who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we
    have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?

    For the first 25 years of my life I was a supporter of the ACLU, until I started researching
    the things they claimed the founding fathers meant. When I realized they used have truths,
    and statements out of context to make their erroneous points, I decided they were flakes,
    and not worth my time (or anymore of my money).

  11. Crazy Politico April 14, 2006 at 3:24 am #

    That should have said “half truths” not “have truths”…. Guess I’m getting old.

  12. brainhell April 14, 2006 at 6:41 am #

    > For instance, his famous “wall of separation”
    between church and state had nothing to do with government never mingling with religion, or God. Only endorsing a single religion, or banning any.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” does not sound to me like “government mingling with religion” is OK.

  13. Crazy Politico April 14, 2006 at 8:14 am #

    Then, Brainhell I’d suggest you do some reading on of Jefferson’s writings, and a dictionary.
    Establishment and endorsement, or for that matter “mentioning” are two completely different things,
    at least according to Miriam Webster.

    The “separation doctrine” came about in the 1930’s when the SCotUS misinterpretted his saying
    about the wall. A minister was worried that one sect would become the “official”
    religion of the US. Jefferson reminded him that the 1st Amendment forbade the creation of an
    official religion through the wall of separation. He continued on to tell him the government
    wouldn’t refuse to acknowledge or deal with anyone simply based on the fact of religion.

    The complete text of Jefferson’s letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802

  14. brainhell April 14, 2006 at 11:00 am #

    > Then, Brainhell I’d suggest you do some reading on of Jefferson’s writings, and a dictionary.

    I suggest you read the Constituion, the law of the land. I hoped you wouldn’t try to divert this into a discussion of your interpretation of Jefferson’s intent — like your nuanced what-is-is dance about how Sheehan was not arrested before she was arrested.

    The Constitution is clear: Congress can’t make ANY law about religion. The Framers still protect me from zealots with opinions like yours, people who would insert religion INTO government, while disingenuosly claiming Framer intent.

    The Constitution is honest and fair. You lose again.

  15. Crazy Politico April 15, 2006 at 5:11 am #

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    When one is in doubt about how a law should be interpreted, or what it means, Jefferson and Madison thought it best to go back to what the writers thoughts were.

    In this case they are well documented, and lined up very much against your argument.

    You can check here ( tons of information on the amendment’s religion clause. What you find is the “establishment clause” was against a national religion, and forced observance of one.

    At the same time, they wanted Congress to respect someone’s ability to express their religion. In fact the idea that religion be banned from any type of activity involving the goverment would be a pretty bold thought, since they opened each of the convention meetings with a prayer.

    Why would a group of men, wishing to have no government involvement with God or any religion start their government meetings with a prayer?


  1. Crazy Politicos Rantings - April 15, 2006

    Religion and the 1st Amendment…

    The Founders Constitution has an outstanding recap of the debate on this clause of the amendment in the House of Representatives in 1791….

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes