Jim Martin for U.S. Senate - "Saxby Economics"

[andybob63]

One last thing,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

---John Adams

It is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

---William Penn

I have more quotes if you want them.

[Jaric55]

You can throw quotes and I can do the same. The founding fathers did not agree on everything, and Jefferson would NOT have agreed with the above quote by John Adams (if he really said that. I would not be suprised if someone like Jerry Falwell invented that quote.) Freedom of religion means freedom NOT to believe in God, or any other religion. That means if we make laws based on religion, (laws that people do NOT have freedom to follow or not), their 1st amendment rights ae being VIOLATED.

[andybob63]

I think that you and I forgot to define our terms. I'm talking about letting religion sway politician's decisions. You're talking about the development of a state religion.

[Jaric55]

They're one and the same. If ANY law is based on ANYTHING but science and fact, then it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Same-sex Marriage is the best example. When politicians try to ban same-sex marriage, they violate the constitution becuase science does not support their view that same-sex couples are any different (and therefore less worthy of civil marriage) than opposite-sex couples. They have no scientific or constitutional basis to ban it, and doing so violates equal protection.

[andybob63]

Vote Chambliss.

Save our country from a Democrat 60 seat majority.

No party should have that big of a majority.

[Jaric55]

Pssh, Democrats should have 100 Seat majority, and 435 seat majority in the House. It's like "only 59% moving forward, or shall we have a much bigger effort?" I'll take 100% moving forward rather than having stubborn Christian Fascists and Free Market Fanatics throw tantrums along the way when James and Mark get married, and when we give tax breaks to (GOD FORBID) someone making less than 30,000 a year!

[andybob63]

Wow. America would really be a democracy then huh?

[Jaric55]

Of course it would. Except this time we won't be executing citizens. Gay people won't be paying taxes to a government that discriminates against them. We'll still have trees in 20 years. People can still burn flags to protest, but they shouldn't need to since we won't be invading other countries becuase we feel like it. When government is 100% secular, it isn't "secular fascism," it's simply 100% compliance with the constitution. When religion injects itself into civil matters, THAT is fascism.

[andybob63]

Where in the Constitution does it state that there must be no Religion in the Government?

And you still didn't answer my first two questions:

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress must protect the middle class? And where does it say that homosexuals have the right to marry?

P.S. why do you have quotation marks around Secular Fascism? I never said that phrase.

[Jaric55]

First amendment. Separation of Church & State, and Freedom of Religion. If religion controls laws that people must follow, then they lose freedom of religion, becuase they must follow the laws of a particular religion. Constitution gives gays right to marry in the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, meaning marriage for all, or marriage for none, not just one group (straights). No, the constitution doesn't say we should give tax cuts to rich people either. Newt Gingrich said:"SecularFascism

[andybob63]

I have never stated that there should be a State Religion. If the Federal Government endorsed a religion, that would cut back on freedom, which, I agree with you would be a terrible thing. However. That doesn't mean there must be no religion at all in the Government. The phrase, "Separation of Church and State" is never used in the Constitution. (Or at least not my copy of it.)

The Founding Fathers all knew that a Government couldn't survive without strong morality and faith in the Government.

[andybob63]

Continuded, (I ran out of space)

I can give you any number of quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, etc that say how much we need a strong morality in our Government. Keep in mind, that these issues, (Homosexual Marriage, Abortion, etc) have been around for a long time. Definitely when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

The writers of the Constitution were mostly Christian, and would never have put in an Amendment that made a State religion. OR one allowing Homosexual Marriage

[Jaric55]

Actually that's wrong. Jefferson is the one who explained what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" meant. He said a "wall was to be built between religion and the government." Morality is subjective. Slavery was written into the constitution, but is that "moral." Clearly people have different morals, and it DOES mean that no one group's morals will be included in government while others are denied. If marriage is established by religion (and therfore defined..

[Jaric55]

[continued] ...by it), then marriage is unconstitutional due to the first amendment. Marriage (or any other government institution) cannot be held to religious or "moral" standards without violating the constitution. You can pretend that you know what the founding fathers wanted, but they aren't here now. Homosexuality was still considered a "disease" in those days, but we found otherwise in the '70s. 1st amendment means absolutely NO religion in gov. Are laws are based on science and fact ONLY.

[andybob63]

As I have stated, nearly all of our country's founders were strong believers in God, and in a higher Law, one that should not be broken.

You are twisting the Constitution to make it seem to say things that the writers never wanted to convey. The first Amendment only states that the Government shall not mandate a Federal religion. That does not mean that there should be no crosses on state property,

It's impossible not to include morals in government. Such doing ensures destruction.

[Jaric55]

You're simply wrong. The constitution says what it says, and you can't try to "reinterpret" what it says to suit your moral agenda. It's NOT impossible to not include morals in government, in fact, when marriage equality is legalized (and the Supreme Court makes the states abide by the 14th amendment), then we will have achieved it. Every other law is based on science. I guess you weren't paying attention when the Supreme Court declared the ten commandments on public property unconstitutional.

[andybob63]

What Jefferson clearly meant, was that the government should not, and will not make or endorse a state religion.

It really makes no sense that the Founding Fathers would create a Constitution that contradicts the views that they held.

Morality is NOT subjective. What about murder? What about rape? Stealing? The morality of those things aren't subjective.

Clearly, there is a High Law, one not set by man, but by his Creator. There is a (Usually) clear right or wrong.

[cont.]

[Jaric55]

Murder, rape, and theft are not illegal becuase they're "immoral," but becuase those actions violate property rights (property of self, and of material things). Murder can be "moral" to some people. For example murdering someone who you think is a terrorist could be deemed "moral" by someone. Morality IS and ALWAYS WILL BE subjective. Your reinvention of Jefferson's quote is disturbing. Your attempting to create a constitutional basis to set up a Christian Fascist State; a theocracy.

[andybob63]

And...why is violating someone else's property rights illegal? Because it's immoral!

No matter how you construct your argument, the fact remains, that the Fathers of America would never have put something in the constitution that they believed was horrid and sinful. Would YOU do that? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't.

[Jaric55]

WRONG! It's illegal becuase without it, we wouldn't have a working society. You're looking at the constitution as something moral or immoral..it's not either. It's a paper document that set up a government that would allow the MOST freedom, and that means allowing the freedom to do "immoral" actions (only to some they are immoral). Worshipping Satan is "immoral" isn't? It's PROTECTED by the constitution! Morality and working government are TOTALLY unrelated. Wake up and look at the constitution.

[andybob63]

Funny, but I don't think we're going to convince each other of anything. You are totally ignoring my point about how the Fathers of America would never have put something in the constitution that they believed was sinful.

Until you answer me about that. I have nothing more to say to you.

[Jaric55]

Dude. You don't get it. Their idea of what is "sinful" had NO bearing on the constitution. They didn't shape the constitution to reflect their religious beliefs AT ALL, meaning they didn't put anything "sinful" in it, and neither did they put anything preventing people from doing "sinful" things. You're acting like they were trying to set a "moral attitude" for the country, when they were simply setting up a government that would work.

[andybob63]

YOU don't get it. It makes no sense for them to have ignored their beliefs in making a Constitution. Would you forget the things you believe are true and moral in the Constitution of your country? No you wouldn't. You would want your view represented.

[Jaric55]

They allowed EVERYONE to have their own moral beliefs by NOT imposing their own! Look, they made murder illegal..does it mean they thought that it was immoral? No, even though they probably thought it was. Conversely, they allowed freedom of speech, but does that mean they thought all speech was moral, such as blashpemy? NO. They recognized that not everyone shared the same moral beliefs, and so that they couldn't create a set of laws that only upheld one set of beliefs. FREEDOM is AMERICAN.

[Jaric55]

So, do you understand now?

[andybob63]

Look. I've made my case. and stated it clearly. I don't understand how you couldn't get it, but you don't. Sadly to say, my parents have told me that I can't argue with you anymore. So sorry. And yes, I am under 18.

[Jaric55]

Well I'm not surprised you can't argue with me. Christian Fascists don't let opposing view points even be considered when indoctrinating their youth. You're case wasn't based on facts, it was based on what the local pastor thinks about how the country should go. The fact is, our government is a secular government which allows you to have your own religious beliefs, but requires you keep them out of public policy making, becuase not doing do takes away the religious freedom of others.

[Jaric55]

By the way, having a secular government does NOT contradict their views. I'm a Christian too, just like they were, but they knew they didn't have the right to impose that religion on the nation, and neither do you. They created a SECULAR government that lets EVERYONE have freedom of religion, not just Christians.

[andybob63]

For the last time, I'm not for the creation of a state religion! Please start realizing that.

I'm FOR freedom. It solves problems. What I'm saying, is that morals should guide our country. I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian, and still think morality is subjective. Jesus clearly stated that there are Rights, and there are Wrongs.

I am against the State making a religion federal. But I am for morality in the Government.

[Jaric55]

Here: MY morality might say that eating tomatoes is wrong, & maybe that's what my religion says too. According to your logic, it's okay for me to try to ban tomato eating becuase it's immoral in my view. Morals and religion are the same when concerning government, in that NEITHER of them can be involved without taking freedom of those who do not share the same moral set or religion. You're trying to inject morals into government, but not everyone shares your morals, as is the case with religion.

[Furiousblue42]

It appears that the Republicans are getting pretty desperate.

Here in Georgia the GRP are sending out mailers with

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and msnbc's Keith Olbermann on it saying "Only your vote can stop liberal Democrats."

How sad.

[ziggybeez]

Saxby has an ample enough list of racist comments, dubious connections, and questionable economic policies that I find it hard to believe that the race can be this close.

[harperisaliar]

Go Jim Martin! Dont forget to remind the people about how exactly Chambliss got this seat in the first place.....by slandering a veteran

[brjvideo]

Oh, and my attempts to comment on this video on the DSCC posting titled "Cha-Ching" were rejected by the party that claims to be the party of free speech and the people.

[brjvideo]

The "facts" in this ad are bogus.

According to the group of economist that studied it every product and service has an embedded tax of 23%. Once enacted market forces will drive the cost of products down 23% balancing the Federal sales tax. The Fair Tax replaces the Federal income tax and eliminates the IRS. Consumers at or below the poverty level will receive a monthly prebate for the expected amount of tax paid.

Learn the facts, dont be a useful idiot.

[CheeryToes]

Democrats have been in power for the past 2 years in congress,they promised change and BOY did we get it. It's not failed Bush economics, it's a failed ability to weed out pork and a congress that is drunk on power and greed (Dem&Rep) I say throw them all out - everyone of them that asked for pork or put pork in the BAIL OUT and everyone of them that have voted "present" instead of voting - what the heck are we paying them for? It makes me sick. I have seen the enemy and he is us.

[Jaric55]

Democrats have not "been in power." Everything they try to pass gets vetoed, and there aren't enough of them to overrule him. Also, "bail out" is a loaded term, and isn't really accurate. Anyway Jim Martin is 100x better than Chambliss, and I voted for Martin!!

[fairtaxhtown]

Jaric, do you have a few examples of "everything" Bush as vetoed? As I remember, he has used the least of any president in history

Just want to be sure you're not spouting party talking points...

[Jaric55]

WHOA...you remember VERY incorrectly! He vetoed 12 times...many president have done less..many without a single veto, such as Taylor, Garfield, and even Thomas Jefferson.

Remember Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Bill twice! He vetoed Children's Health Insurance. He vetoed two Farm Bills, which were both overridden thankfully. Democrats can only get things done when Congressional Republicans agree with them.

[andybob63]

Dude....where have you been over the past few years?

[Jaric55]

Watching Congress NOT protect the working and middle class, IGNORE (and almost attempt to wrongly remove) the right of same-sex couples to marry, attempt to EXPUNGE the right of free speech in the form of flag burning, IGNORE the blaring state-run murder programs carried out in many states, and let everyone who isn't a millionaire struggle while tax dollars "reward" the wallstreet and oil fatcats for simply being rich! For the past 2 years, we've held some hearings, but nothing could get passed.

[andybob63]

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress must protect the middle class? Where does it say that homosexuals have the right to marry? Where does it say those things? I will give you that the death penalty (For I assume that is what you mean) is wrong, but you will most likely sneer at that, because my motivations are religious.

P.S. Flag burning isn't free speech, it's hating America.

[tcmsav912]

One thing, the $80 billion surplus, is about $30 billion off.

[dpinzow]

This is a crazy good ad...love the chalkboard bit and Martin as the teacher

[jade2002]

this was a great ad, voted for you today Mr. Martin- Good luck

[Jaric55]

Yeah! Let's wipe that Republican Grime out of Congress!

[jdude101]

What a pathetic ad. Martin needs to go back to school

[swdekalb4]

High Gas Prices: Jim Martin.

American's are suffering, Jim, and you say "NO" to drilling for new oil off shores, you say "NO" to clean nuclear power, "NO" to clean coal....I think it's time for Georgian's to say "NO" to you - AGAIN!

[Jaric55]

YOU need to go to school, and start getting some REAL facts when posting your propaganda. We don't need more offshore drilling. It won't be avaliable for seven years anyway...only 1 yr left of the Obama Administration, and we won't have a need for more drilling anymore.

[fairtaxhtown]

Because our recession would deepen under Obama and we won't be able to drive much. How do you like 2 years of Democratic control of the House and Senate? That working out along with Pelosi's "common sense plan to lower gas prices?"

Democrats have been blocking American oil for decades. This "seven years is too long" has cost the nation trillions and is a lie itself. This is leadership??

[Jaric55]

Yes, I would like 10 more years of Democratic Congressional Control, couples with control of the White House, so we can actually PASS some REAL legisaltion, instead of having everything vetoed by Bush, and not having enough of a majority to override him. If you actually believe the 7 yrs. problem is "a lie," then go ask the oil companies yourself. Find out the process, and you won't need to take my word for it. Wake up man...Democrats aren't the problem..the problem is there isn't enough of 'em.

[fairtaxhtown]

You long for the days of Carter, I know. Where there enough democrats and American hostages around then? Maybe we'll see it again because as Joe Biden said, the world with challenge a weak Obama.

Bush has vetoed less than any other President. Check your talking points, or better yet discard them.

The oil could be flowing in less if radical environmental groups (the kind that bomb buildings like Obama's friend) would stop suing all over the place. Not mature to wait that long for American oil?

[Jaric55]

YOU need to check your talking points man..you're on the internet for God sakes...look it up! NO, we don't need to harm the environment further, when doing so only prolongs the problem! We WILL have to stop using oil, period! No matter where it comes from! So, we must start now, instead of destroying our Earth to put us into a desperate position. YOU need to drop the talking points..."Obama's friend." Gimme a break! You should be grateful us Democrats are working for YOU, and not the rich.

[GeorgiaValues]

Just another negative ad from a negative man.

[WavesAndRocks]

Jim Martin is one of the nicest people I know (and yes, I actually do know him). He makes you believe in the sincerity of politicians.

I love the irony of your statements....I'm assuming you're supporting Saxby, a man who tore apart a triple amputee Vietnam Veteran....

Saxby disgusts me