My description of Clinton may not have been flattery, but I stand by it none-the-less. It was he that made the statement about carpet in the back of his pickup truck. "We all know what that's for, heh-heh" Those were his exact words to my recollection. Insofar as using strong or derogatory terms to describe politicians, and whether or not it is within or without the philosophical framework of Jesus, consider what he said straight to the faces of the political leadership of his day, and then reconsider if I am not adhering to his teaching:

Matthew 23 (New International Version)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Strong? These words aren't just strong, they are strong enough to get killed over, which is just what happened. Obviously this does not fit the pacifist, feminized version of Jesus that many beleive is real, but then the many have been often wrong.

I do not hate Bill Clinton. Now prove me wrong, if you want to say I am wrong. Please show me where I say I hate someone, profane or slander, or insult simply to insult. I say this: those that claim to be the loving, tolerant, "open minded" folks in this country are often anything but that. Most of that is just one big lie. They are the ones that are so often full of raging hate, and I have seen it face to face. You want to know what really helped to cement my belief system? When I was in college, I performed in a musical group that toured the country doing an outdoor patriotic show. I will never, never forget the furious faces, blood red screaming their hatred and vitriol in response to our program, but utterly drowned out by the PA system, the music, the singers. Those open yaws, screaming, straining, eyes popping to overcome the sound, but being unable to. Their faces, the faces of "good, liberal minded people" are forever burned in my mind. They did not know me, but they sure hated me with a white hot hatred. Like some of the people in this forum. People that cannot stand to be disagreed with, whose only response is calling me a F*&%tard. I doubt that most of you have ever experienced it quite the same. You think preachers spew hatred? They are nothing compared to what I have seen.

Poco

and would ask the editors to remove it.

Thanks,

The real Poco.

To the contrary, I expect the responses I am getting. Please show me where I am promoting hate.

Thanks,

Poco

"Poco: you probably well know that "activist judges" is a republican meme but I'll go ahead and address it. The role of the judiciary is to act as a check and balance against the other branches. This includes determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. Majority rule appeals to a facile American sense of fairness but obviously a main purpose of the Bill of Rights is to act as a check against the tyranny of the majority, especially in the critical arena of civil rights. Let's go back to the 14th amendment, shall we? The one that promised equal protection? Only a few decades ago "the people" of the great state of Virginia thought it was just fine to restrict citizens' right to marry solely on the basis of skin color. The supreme court set them straight, as it later set straight "the people" of Connecticut in regards to the right of married couples to use contraception."

Sharon,

You are absolutely correct (and thank you for some meaningful debate). The judiciary was designed to provide check and balance, and to protect the constitution. However, in the end it is the people that actually wield power, even over the oligarchy, as strange as this sounds. What enough of the people want, if they want it badly enough, will come to pass regardless of what institution is in power. The people's form of check and balance is that they can amend the constitution, to the effect that the judiciary has no grounds for action. This is precisely what occurred when the 18th amendment to the national constitution was passed. I very much prefer this type of action at the state level, rather than the national level. This too can be seen as a form of balance. If someone feels that a certain situation is repressive in one state, they can move to another that has a different constitution.

When it comes to civil rights, it would appear that the national constitution will not trump the various state constitutions concerning the legal definition of marriage, but again in the end it is the people that actually wield power.

The final argument to these types of questions often boils down to this: "you can't legislate morality" (oh, for a nickel for every time I have heard that one). The truth is yes, you can legislate morality, it has always been done, and will always be done. The only time you will like it is when it happens to be your morality.

Poco