chuckakers

Even if I believed any of what the New York Times has to say (you do remember that's the paper with a well established history of publishing blatantly false stories, don't you?) it wouldn't matter. The Mormon Church was participating in the political process - legally. No different than when black preachers all across this great nation encouraged members to vote for Obama (so much for him being the "post racial president"). You guys are barking up a mute tree here. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about churches being involved in the political process. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. I hear Cuba is nice this time of the year. And what a medical system! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

$190,000? Yeah, that kind of scratch sure made a difference. What's that buy, a dozen TV spots? You guys are so entertaining. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Considering they're the ones that put it on the ballot . . . it's more than just opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin A news article from (the very biased) New York times doesn't exactly carve your argument into stone as fact. Besides, that's democracy at work - what's the problem? Likewise, if it hadn't been for ACORN's efforts, your man B.O. might not have made it to the White House. See how that works? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Less than 50% of people (in California I assume you mean) weren't in favor of banning gay marriage, yet the voters did? I guess the poll takers didn't poll voters. And please prove up your comment on the Mormon church. How can you you be sure that the prop wouldn't have passed without the church's campaign. Unless you can , that's just an opinion. And you know what they say about that. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Technically true, completely untrue in actual practice. For instance, California Prop 8 was entirely motivated by a religious group. Their "morals" rule the day because they were able to convince a majority of Christians to vote for it to the detriment of an under represented minority. That's bullshit. Actually, true in practice. California law allows for amendments to the state constitution through the initiative and referendum process. That allows the people – under certain circumstances – to use the popular vote to decide what the constitution looks like. That's not respecting the establishment any religion. That's people – many, but not all of whom are guided by their religion – exercising their right to vote the way they feel is right. It’s the most basic of democratic principals. If there were more people FOR gay marriage in California than AGAINST it, things would gave gone the other way. Were many – or even most - of the people voting for it religious? Maybe. But that is not relevant. There are many reasons a person might have voted the way they did; religion is only one of them. What about the Atheists who disagree with gay marriage? They exist, you know. How about gay people who are against it? How about Agnostics? Should their votes count? And if so, should not the religious person’s vote count too? One person, one vote, regardless of the motivation behind their vote. If you believe so strongly that California’s constitution should not allow the initiative and referendum process (which is what it sounds like you are really getting at) then you have the right to push for a change in the constitution. If you choose not to do that, anything else you say could be considered simply whining. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Ah, so the crux of the matter here is that as long as there is no LAW that established a national religion, it's fine for the majority to establish a de facto one and create other laws that may go against the religious (or non-religious) views of the minority? No. Religion should have as much to do with our political system as it does with mathematics or physics. That is to say, none. It should NEVER be a consideration when making laws or national policy. I believe you are using majority and minority too literally. We are not a democracy with a simple majority rule, where the most get what they want at the expense of the few. Considering your statement, I would think you would be glad of that. We are a representative republic. We elect our officials to represent us. We as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Atheists for that matter influence our representatives through our vote and our free expression, the same way skydivers, boy scouts, gay rights activists, college students, and yes, even Mary Kay Cosmetics consultants do. If you don’t like the way your representatives are representing, you have the constitutional right – no, duty – to stand against them at the voting booth, as well as on any public street if you feel the need. A person can not remove their values and principles when they go into the voting booth, nor should they be expected to. They should vote their conscience, and that conscience comes from any number of life influences and priorities, including religion. Telling a citizen they can't use influences of their religion in voting is as ridiculous as telling someone they can't use any other life influences in voting. No one will force you or anyone else to practice – or even respect – any religion, nor is there any law allowing anyone to force you to (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). However in return we must not restrict the ability of others to practice as they choose (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), even in the voting booth. Hell, especially in the voting booth. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not just me. I think if you look closely at the 1980 election you'll see it absolutely had a huge impact. Exactly. POLITICALLY motivated organizations. Last time I checked, religion wasn't supposed to be about politics. In fact, isn't it written that Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”? Matthew 22:21 Pretty much any interpretation of that includes; separation of church and state and pay your taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar... So a group of people can work together to acheive political goals unless religion happens to be their common denominator? I don't buy that. Religion is the guiding force in the lives of those who practice it. Using your logic, a religious person has no right to express political opinions since everything in their life is guided by their religion. Everyone's values and prinicpals are guided by something. Why is it you believe religion (read Christianity) shouldn't be allowed to guide politically active people. Keep in mind that (most) religious people aren't trying to make anyone practive their religion. They are simply using the values they believe in to guide their political decisions. There's a difference. Besides, religious groups push their agendas into government all the time. I don't hear anyone busting the Muslims balls for trying to push their political agenda. We have tax dollars going to install foot baths in public airports, tax dollars paying government employed muslims to pray during work hours, and an assortment of other failures of "separation of church and state". What's up with that??? As for your assertion that the "Render unto Ceasar" scripture is a way of saying there should be a separation of church and state, that is only an inturpretation of some. There are many more that believe it only referred to Jesus saying man should submit to an earthly authority when appropriate. Let's not forget the first ammendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't know of any law respecting an establishment of religion - do you? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

He must not have read the 2007 editorial by Dr. Lindzen that states: Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies. Ouch, that is going to leave a mark But it doesn't mention his consulting activities, does it? None of my research was ever funded by ALCOA, but they paid me a lot in consulting fees. So you are using yourself to point out that "experts" can be bought? Presents a bit of a credibility problem for you, doesn't it? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Indeed they are. Just out of curiosity, why is that "unfortunate"? I thought I had made that clear; it becomes a single voting block that can be manipulated using the fear of "God". It's not that they're "Christians," but rather they are such a large block of voters. Prior to the mid-to-late 1970s, the idea of a voting block of Christians was unheard of. 1979 changed that when Falwell and his new "Moral Majority" decided he could grab some power by hooking up with other groups to help get Reagan elected. Just the name of the organization alone tells you everything you need to know about the not so subtle way they were going to play. If you weren't part of them, you would have to consider yourself a part of the "minority" (aka losers) and it was your "immoral" nature that caused you to do so. It's all manipulative. I think you are giving way too much credit to Falwell and the "MM". Reagan was elected because the people of America - "MM" or not - wanted change from the nightmare Carter brought to the country. 22% interest rates will do that to people. I don't see much difference between the "manipulation" you speak of with Christians and that which we see today with ACORN, the SEIU, the green movement (also a religion), and any number of other politically motivated causes. Each spews its version of propaganda to its believers in an effort to influence political opinion and the direction of the country. Christians use religion, but there are many other equally effective voting blocks. And the Christians I know aren't motivated by any "fear of God" as you put it. They are motivated by doing what they believe is right. Aren't we all? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Indeed they are. Just out of curiosity, why is that "unfortunate"? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So you admit that breathtakingly stupid political spin is breathtakingly stupid. That's a good First Step. So do you have a comment on the issue, or are you once again focused on me? I'm happily married, ya know. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Been super happy with my Voodoo. It was my third RI product. Comfortable, secure, and easy to pack. Also, I don't baby my gear and it's been holding up well since I got it 9 years ago. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Any idea if it will work with the NP-FH100? I think that's the biggest one. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

New CX100 on the way as well as a Rawa Vision with a sidemount box. Wondering if the box will accept the camera with a fat battery on it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What about the fact that Obama and Hitler share 99.9% of DNA, so they must be like, identical twins or something? Certainly, they must have the same political views because of that. Of course, humans share only 96% of their DNA with chimpanzees, so there's no way that we could be evolutionary cousins. Apes are gross. And they say I have no credibility. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's the chuck I know. My man Robert!!!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes I do. Maybe that's why I have a beautiful life. A blessed one too. By the way, Van Jones is a communist. How's that credibility workin' out for ya. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Gee Don - you sure know a lot about me. Just to set you straught.... I have no hatred of liberals. I don't hate anyone. In fact, I have unconditional love for everyone and everything (darned Christianity gettin' in your way). I just think libs are short-sighted followers of dangerous people. I didn't see your post asking me that "serious question", and I don't dissappear from anyone. But since you asked, I would reduce illegal immigration by shutting down the borders and enforcing immigration laws. If you are here illegally, you need to go - period. Could we get rid of all illegals? Of course not. Should we try? Yes. Many countries strictly enforce immigration law - oddly enough including Mexico. Go figure. And as for the shit-bomb you speak of, I didn't know whether it was real or not when I posted it. I didn't really care. I posted it to hear what people had to say about the content of that letter without respect to who wrote it or who it was attributed to. And talk about people not having anything of substyance to say, have you not noticed how the libs on here spend more time trying to beat up conservative posters rather than just having an honest discussion about the issue? Probably not. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not at all. But it is a nice little extra. I love when the opposition starts a reply with "so in other words (insert gross exaggeration of the truth here)". That strategy is getting old. You were caught posting a lie. Your wriggling and squirming is not helping you. Sorry, no wriggling or squirming goin on here. I owned up. More than the libs would ever do. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not at all. But it is a nice little extra. I love when the opposition starts a reply with "so in other words (insert gross exaggeration of the truth here)". That strategy is getting old. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's a stretch. I'd bet a beer that if you ask an FAA type, they would say you aren't participating in "sport parachuting" if you're not planning on making a "sport parachute" jump. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

He's jumping at my DZ (Air Capital Drop Zone, Wichita Kansas), we do not have staff, or lift capacity to offer AFF. I don't have an issue with AFF, and occasionally will have a student do an AFF jump or two at some point in their progression if it's deemed appropriate or helpful, and an AFFI happens to be available. Martin That makes things a bit clearer. The way it sounded, people routinely start on SL and then switch mid-program to AFF. That begged the question why not just start with one or the other and stay with it. Do you keep the student on AFF once they have made one AFF jump? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Oh my friend, you miss the point entirely. I do this to get under the lib's skin. By the way, does the name Van Jones ring a bell? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You are entitled to that opinion. You're just wrong. Yes. For example, Obama has blamed all of our economic problems on the Jews....just like Hitler! Also, the DNC has a militant arm of uniformed thugs who carry weapons and who routinely beat people up when they try to ask Obama about health care at town hall meetings...just like Hitler! Do I even have to mention that Obama has annexed portions of our neighboring countries and is violating the terms of a peace treaty by rapidly increasing the size of the military? And of course, there's all of the death camps. Liberal tactic # 126 - blow the opposing viewpoint out of proportion in an attempt to make the opponent appear extreme and irrational. Death by a thousand cuts, my man. Remember that by the time the Germans saw what WAS happening around them, it was too late. By then, they didn't dare speak out for fear of being on those trains themselves. And must I remind you of the thousands of people jailed by the Sedition Act just for speaking out against the government? (thank you, Woodrow Wilson) Go ahead and forget history - so it can sneak up and bite you on the ass. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Why bother? A few distorted facts about history have no usefulness in the conversation. Anything about current events is OPINION! You welcome to yours. Not worth my time to try to change it or at least bring it into reality. Example, "We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why? " This is OPINION! Not fact. Parts of this statement may apply to individuals or even whole school districts. But as a blanket statement for the country? Opinion. Distorted facts???? Geez man, have you not seen (to address your example) the idiots the public schools have been producing for the past 20+ years?? The FACT is that - on average - privately schooled and home schooled kids perform considerable higher on SAT's and other standardized tests than "graduates" of public schools (which routinely pass kids with FAILING grades). The FACT is that public schools teach little if anything about the founding of our country and the principles upon which it was founded. The FACT is that the literacy rate is far worse than it has ever been in the last 50 years in this country. The FACT is that parents who do revolt by home schooling their kids are being singled out by some governments in an effort to stop them with arbitrary rules and - in some areas - the threat of outlawing it entirely. Have you not been paying attention or do you just spew whatever you are told by the media and your government?? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX