legislator is trying to put Jindal between business and the populist element of the state. It’s a good move on the dems part. If Jindal is really what we’re looking for, he’ll confront this head on by educating the populace about the issue. If he’s not, he’ll stick his head in the sand, avoid the issue until it comes to a head, then test the winds with a wet (and political) finger. I live in LA, and I can tell you I am not confident he’s a leader.

there is no doubt a true conservative leader would oppose this. LA’s homestead exemption is ridiculously high. As a result, residents only pay about 20% of the property taxes in the state. The 80% burden is a real disincentive to business development and growth. I will be livid if he supports this, and I will certainly be disappointed if he doesn’t stop it.

In these times when an idiocy of a D is translated as a golden wisdom in the eyes of the MSM (and, sadly, more than half of the American people), I strongly caution everyone to be careful in making criticism of our conservative leaders.

Look at the current communication efficiency for the Republicans:

1. An excellent accomplishment by an R/C —> SO-SO.

2. Satisfactory —-> Not smart.

3. Measly —–> Bordering from not-smart/dumb to Corrupt.

4. Controversial (mixed review) ——–> bordering from Corrupt to Evil

5. Something that caused Death of an American ———> Evil to Satanic and will be labeled by history as infamy.

Item 4 includes those actions/accomplishments by an R/C politician that received mixed reactions among the republicans. One ugly word coming from an R against an R can easily be translated by the MSM into a 1,000 ugly pictures against all Rs.

So where will our conservative leaders go? Who will advance their cause to the present-day American (aka highly liberal)?

Please note that I’m commenting on the very blog that aims to advance and promote the forthcoming speech of Jindal in behalf of the Republicans in response to Obama’s speech wrt to his debt Stimulator bill.

We need to be picky of the right avenue where to air our grievances/criticisms against our fellow conservatives.

Even Rush is doing it too, right? I mean … promoting an R/C politician (sometimes even making him or her larger-than-life). He knows that our leaders will never get a good PR from the MSM. And they need our support in moments like this.

He is a phony with a good hair-do. He has not stood up to the democrat special interests in this state, and has absolutely pandered to the hispanic groups.

He is Bushy McBushlike and I never want to see him in a national office.

Jindal merely being a proponent of Intelligent Design is in no way suggestive that he wishes to force it down the throats of everyone. And people on our side who claim that he is only add fuel to the fire.

The solution to people getting the idiotic impressions you’re referring to above isn’t admitting it or telling people to shut up about things like I.D. or religion. It’s working to CHANGE those impressions by showing people the truth.

I’m not about to listen to some little Ivy League pissant telling me that Conservatism is “America’s Taliban” without, A, challenging them to show me exactly how and, B, proving them wrong. I’m not going to sit there going, “Yeah, people like that Jindal guy who believe in Intelligent Design — man, what a freak that guy is.” I see no reason to pretend to be other than what many of us are just because we fear somebody might get the wrong impression. We need to change that impression, not change ourselves.

And, again, the beliefs of some Ivy legue pissants is not proof we’re losing. Proof that we still have ground to gain, yes. But we’re constantly gaining ground.

Conservatives are not anything like the Taliban, and neither are conservatives who are also Christians.

And your understanding of the “religious right” is probably not as good as you think it is.

This isn’t the first time you’ve gone off on this nonsense. It is not true. There is no such thing as the “Religious Right” and quite frankly, the number of people who want to remake America into a Christian theocracy are far less than the number who want to turn America into a Communist nation.

Go out and meet a few religious folks. You’d be surprised. Contrary to what your college professor may have told you, some of these guys have Ph.Ds, They even have sex!

Sorry, but that’s a pet peeve of mine.

I guess I qualify as “religious right”. I do NOT want this nation turned into a “nation of God” — i.e., what you call a Church Government. I daresay I am not alone in my feelings.

In fact, I want the government to stay the heck out of my church, my home, my bedroom, my wallet, and my business. Hence, my posting name here.

I believe 100% in the separation of church and state. To me, that means the government may not tell me how to worship. My ethics, morality, and salvation are between me and God — which is true whether the government (any government) recognizes it to be so or not. The same is true for everyone on the planet. There is but one judge for this law, and you won’t find him in any government.

I do, however, want my government to recognize that the people of this nation do have religious preferences, which in turn influence our moral and ethical judgments, and that our government, should respect that and reflect that. Were that not so, perhaps murder wouldn’t be a crime, n’est-ce pas?

As for the feeling on some university campuses that conservatives are the Taliban D’America. Well, what do you expect given the leftist professors opining there, teaching their opinions as fact?

So, do we capitulate to them and play their game their way, or do we fight misinformation and impressions with truth? I prefer the later.

YMMV, yadda yadda.

that athiest humanism is a religion also. It is a set of moral codes, ideas, philosophies people use to understand the world around them, their place in it, their responsibilities to themselves and others, and the nature of right and wrong. The religious right wants religious freedom too. Specifically freedom from the religions of Universalism and Relitivism as we watch our children fall prey to these philosophies and betray our hopes and dreams for them and our chance of living on into the future through the morals and values we leave the next generation. You fear America falling into the trap of Theocracy, we fear America turning into a hedonist state that will marginalise and mock anyone who believes in something bigger than ourselves and greater than the pleasure of the moment for the many.

In short, it’s probably best if the government attempts to respect both religions, while basing our legal code on the moral code of the majority. (remember humanism has a moral code as well-and it’s just as individual to that religion as any moral code is to another-and just as arbitrary)