NDL

How? That's why I hold strong unto the foundational Protestant biblical mandate, which says that our rights come from our Creator. Obviously I believe that a God exists. Yet, I also acknowledge that some people don't believe in the concept of God, or His deity. Yet, people who are atheists exist; they live. God allows people to live; even those who don't believe in Him. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that faith is entirely volitional; it cannot be forced. For if God doesn't force worship, who can man force it? Everything about God is volitional. If the people acknowledge that our rights come from our Creator, then Government cannot interfere with the reasonable personal liberties of another, for positionally, God is above Government. But if our rights come from Government, then people are not inherently free; for it's up to Government to grant freedoms, and up to Government to take them away. Precisely. That's why the framers of our Government, made the distinction between 'our Creator,' and 'religion,' for the two are entirely different. 'our Creator,' as it's worded in many foundational documents, refers to God. Yet, 'religion,' as it's worded in many foundational documents, refers to the way in which people worship God. For while our forefathers believed in God, they liked not, the fact that they were told *how* to worship God. To ensure that no one church would impose it's will on the people, they came up with the establishment clause. In the end, reasonable people seem to come up with reasonable solutions, with which most can agree. Unfortunately, it would seem that the moderates aren't in control of things, with fringe groups controlling most, if not all.

You're right; you didn't. In mentioning Christianity, I was addressing a pet peeve of mine: the emotionally thinking, 'self proclaimed' neoconservative contingent, whose sometimes illogical actions, act to bastardize legitimate conservatism. I disagree that the extreme right is fascism. The extreme right label is usually, but not always, reserved for puleoconservatives. The largely religious people comprising the 'Old Right,' correctly acknowledge that our rights do not come from man, but from God. And if our freedoms come from God, how can man/woman usurp the rights that God has given us? Don't know much about Coulter's politics. I know she sometimes champions values that are popular with traditionalists, but from what little I know, she herself, doesn't appear to live the life of what she espouses.

Again, I thank you. I can assure you, that by most standards, my views are considered radical. To answer both your post, and Croc's (in part), I believe: - Not that I want to bring back The Articles Of Confederation, I believe in limiting tremendously, the size of federal government. - The statement 'separation of Church and State' was not drawn up in any official document, but was contained in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a concerned Baptist Pastor, in CT. The emphasis of Church/State separation, was to protect people from worshiping however they liked (or not at all). I believe we have to get back to that, for there is a faction that wants to abolish religion from the public square. At the same time, I believe that there is a 'fascist' contingent, that is set on marrying religion and government, which is totally wrong. Jesus never forced anyone to worship Him; faith is entirely volitional; this fascist contingent must recognize this fact. - Manufacturing jobs are the gateway for the poor, into the middle class. Repeal unfair trade laws; apply protectionary tariffs to imported goods. - Repeal the Department Of Education; return control of the schools to locally elected officials. - Pull in our military; stop American imperialism. - Bring back pre-1965 immigration laws, which flood the market with cheap (slave) labor; give immigrants already here the chance to achieve the American Dream. That's just off the top of my head... I really don't know enough about O'Reilly to comment.

I wish I could give you absolute numbers, but I can't. For the same reason, asking members in my church won't help - for there are those who agree with me, and those who do not. Those who agree with me, often do so on a factual basis; there's no disagreement. Yet those who disagree with me, often do so by using emotional arguments. You can't argue someone (nor is it worthwhile), when they use emotion to defend their positions.

According to some estimates, 33% of Evangelicals sat the 2004 election out. And of the remaining 67% who voted, a fair number did not vote the GOP ticket. On the other hand, I know a good deal of moderate New Yorkers who swung right in 2004, out of fear in a 'post 9/11 world.' Since I find little in common with the Grand Old Party, there's really nothing for me to discuss with 'myself.'

What makes her extreme right? Not to pick your post apart Croc, I am a Christian conservative, whose views most would consider 'extreme right.' Yet, I find in Ann Coulter, little to like, and little to agree with. Why do the majority of progressive thinkers, associate with Conservatism, shrill neoconservative GOP rabble-rouser talking heads, like Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity? Why is not the standard of conservatism judged on intellectual conservatives, like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts? True conservatives find more in common with Ralph Nader, than they do in G.W. Bush.

I don't play bass, but we don't know that to be true. It's said that Michael Anthony is one of the most underrated bass players out there. Either way, his stage presence, and background vocals, cannot be duplicated. I can see Wolfie running around with a Jack Daniel's bass, on this 'reunion' tour...

Rolling Stone

Yeah, it's probably true, although to me, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't going to see them. MA loyalties aside, Wolfie's a kid for crying out loud. Would you pay $60 to see a kid play? The new cover of Rolling Stone looks beyond stupid. Who could take them seriously?

Realize that, as someone who was present, one of two things could've happened: 1) A punk who instigated, and took part, in the taunting of a woman, thereby involved himself in a situation, during which his ear was torn off. 2) Four persons of the male gender, were harassing a woman, to the point where something ugly may have happened to an innocent person. If the punk had no problem taking his fist at you, then I shudder to think about what might of happened to that single woman. The above two choices are the only conclusions available. There's a clear demarcation point between a person of the male gender, and a man. And I can think of no greater testament to the character of a man, when he goes up against four guys, in defense of a single woman.

Mustn't be easy. My heart goes out to you. I know that the general/vague replies, can only go so far, and last so long... I am married, but I get the inquisition, in other ways...

Yeah, I used to be that way too. That method doesn't work forever though, and it's good that it doesn't, for you never know when they're going to die. Either way, I appreciate what you're going through. When I watch Seinfeld, I often wonder if the Costanza family skits were directly lifted from a hidden microphone, in the family livingroom... "G-E-O-R-G-I-E!"

Get a Ranger. I am a GM man (of course), but when a friend was selling his Ranger, he offered me a deal I couldn't pass up. Admittedly biased against Ford's, I'll never forget the first time I worked on this thing. Is it a small truck? Yes. But it's built like a tank. The current iteration has been around forever, so any kinks (not that there were really any to begin with), were worked out. Plus, you have the choice between an economical 4, or powerful 6.

Happy Birthday!

Yeah, it's sad indeed. Tragic. As another poster pointed out, her life personified two evils known as superficiality and greed. What's sad and tragic, is that she married really young, had a child, and then got divorced. She had to support her child somehow, so she became a stripper. It was her choice of course, but it is easy to see the path that led to her downfall... Tragic.

Oh What A Feeling! TOYOTA! (Couldn't resist ) Glad your car got fixed. Could've been worse...

A couple of things: 1) I actually miss some of the 'old school' cladding. Pontiac's new designs are devoid of it, to the point where they look a little generic. 2) The sidewalls on the tires they spec'd out, are ridiculously slim. People in the Northeast aren't going to go for that...

Thanks for the needed laugh! (Kinda scary actually...)

Thanks Camino...didn't know about that either. Actually, the speedometer is a good 4 mph off as it is. The speedometer is electronic; any idea about how to correct the difference?

I appreciate the education ...Good thing that I posted this up, otherwise I would've made the mistake of ignoring the differences between wheels (until *after* the fact). Thanks

Thanks to all, for your input...After weighing it out, it doesn't seem like it's worth the hassle. I'll probably still pick up the tires/wheels, but I might see if a local junkie wants to do a swap (for Ford wheels). Thanks again for your help, for you all brought up things I wouldn't have considered!

Thanks blu, for your helpful suggestions! After giving it thought, I am leaning towards sticking with what I have. 33 views, and only two replies...hmm

Thanks for the tips blu! Actually the wheels are identical in size, while the tires are the same width, although the aspect ratio is 75, versus the 70's on the truck right now. They should only knock the speedometer a mile or two off, right? (which wouldn't usually be a problem - although the speedometer is already 3-4 mph off). Thing is, they're Jeep wheels. Maybe I am taking this overboard, but I think Jeep accessories might look stupid on my Ford. That's the main issue. (Then again, I am anal about these types of things...I always like to keep things stock)

I have a newer Ford Ranger, with the stock steel wheels. A friend of mine just pulled off new five spoke aluminum wheels, off his new Jeep Wrangler. I can get the wheels/tires cheap. Thing is, do you think Jeep wheels would look stupid on my truck? Would you take them?

Now in my mid-thirties, I have liked Van Halen since I was 8 or 9. In the past twelve years, they have come out with one album worth of new material. In 1997, they came out with a 'Best Of' collection. In 2004, they came out with another 'Best Of' collection. In 2007, rumors speculate a 'Box Set.' They treated Gary Cherone terribly, and now they kick out Mike Anthony!? Heritage aside, who's going to handle the backing vocals? No Mike = No Van Halen