NCAAbbs

Which President will you be more glad to see gone?

What a tough one!

Yes, it was a difficult decision, but I came through with a response.

This is a tough one. Lets see here. First we got George W. Bush who has ruined our country as we know it. On the other hand we have President Stanton who has ruined my Alma Mater. While President Bush has to be one of the worst and dumbest presidents this country has ever seen I don't believe he would be dumb enough to cut football at ETSU, so I went with Paulie.

THE BEST LINE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS BOARD...and its probably true!

You guys sound like the ETSU faculty. It wasn't a tough decision for me. If Stanton was the President of the US he would drop us down to a 3rd world country due to our deficit and hope that giving would increase.

I was having a hard time on picking one, but you guys have laid out the deciding factors. Paul.

I do not think a Texan would cut football and keep Soccer.

I vote for Stanton.

Stanton would drop the Navy and keep the Coast Guard.

In four years.....Obama.

Honestly, I can't believe the vote is as close as it is.

That's not fair to the Coast Guard. He might drop the Navy for the Girl Scouts, but never the Coast Guard.

He wouldn't drop the Navy for the Girl Scouts.

He'd drop the Navy for a Pharmacy School.

I`m betting this will not be the case, well maybe for you personally. Of course since you're already prejudicing his hypothetical presidency it really doesn`t matter what he does.

Bucnut, I don't think so.

Care to expand beyond 4 words?

He's hit the nail on the head with this.
And as for the "worst" president of all time, he's been the worst president since the age of electronic media. Go research Fillmore, Coolidge and Taylor. Hayes, Arthur and Taft weren't exactly great ones, either. Oh, and there was that little thing called THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Thanks, Herbert Hoover. So calling W. the worst President of all time might be a little mellow-dramatic, guys, he's just a terrible public speaker.
Stick to Stanton folks, we can all agree that he's been the worst ETSU president.

Here's the deal with that, Hoover didn't cause the great depression, he didn't cause the stock market to crash. Hoovers fatal flaw was that he basically stood idly by and watched as the country's economy fell apart, and when he did finally realize that a plan of action was necessary he had no idea what to do or where to turn. Hoover's main problem was ignorance and stupidity(two qualities also shared by W).

Bush(and his cronies) put this country in a self made predicament. Bad decisions and polices are directly to blame for the situation we are currently in. Not to mention the fact that nearly every policy or decision that has been made by this administration has done more harm than good. I not sure there has been another president where everything he touches turns to crap, at the end of the day when we're looking back at W's presidency what is going to be the positive achievement tied to his administration? At least Hoover left us with some national parks and a dam.

Now its very hard for me to actually put Bush ahead of Hoover as worse president ever, how about we call them 1A and 1B. Those two are certainly miles ahead of the other former presidents because while those presidents were certainly not the country's best, the lasting impact of Bush and Hoover are much further reaching and longer lasting.

Whats really sad is that I'm laboring to decide if Paul Stanton is worse than either Hoover or Bush. Much like Bush just about everything he has touched has gone to the crapper.

This arguement is absurd.

Teddy Roosevelt is clearly the worst president of all time because he kept football legal and did not put everything else in the country on hold to give kickbacks to the pharmaceutical industry.

Bad information, and a bi-partisan Congress approving the war in Iraq caused the country to be in this mess. Say what you want, but the Executive Branch of the United States cannot declare war on anyone or nation without the approval of the Congress, which he had an overwhelming support to do. You hit the point, Bush didn't cause gas prices to skyrocket, 15mpg SUV's did, W. just happened to be in office at the time of the boom of gas guzzling vehicles. I don't think Bush II has been a great president by any stretch, but calling him the worst of all time when we've had presidents who caused a hell of alot more issues in this country is ridiculous.
On another note, everyone gripes about the media and TV programming, where did that come from? Oh, that was little deregulation act that happened in... 1996, which has allowed companies like Media General, Citadel Broadcasting, Clear Channel, etc... to own the majorities of the media outlets in this country. Go look at who the president was then. Who was the president when NAFTA was signed which basically has allowed all of these companies to outsource their jobs to Mexico and wherever else they want without taking a beating on import taxes? I guess you've never lost a job or had a friend lose one because it got moved to Juarez? Oh, I guess W. is to blame for the transgressions and DUMB ASS MOVES OF PAST PRESIDENTS. The same goes for Stanton, granted, and it's something he and W. have in common, neither were smart enough, or proactive enough to address and fix the problems within their "nation," instead of being able to do their job, they were too busy trying to keep their job and look good at it, and both failed, MISERABLY.
As for T.R., Pitt don't make me bring up your fear of Mike White again. You've been behaving.

I didn't want to get into this, and have been biting my tongue, but CLEARLY bush2 (small caps in keeping with my tradition of no respect) has been the worst president since Hoover. When, say in 2006, he CLEARLY surpassed Nixon (how hard was *that* to do?!) (check with John Dean's assessment - he should know), he was in perhaps uncharted territory. I think most scholars put him as the worst, or very close to it. Andrew Johnson from down the road was pretty bad, and some others, too, but they were mostly "distinguished" by not doing anything rather than creating horrible problems. The argument is valid that bush is the worst because he had the tools to do more harm, and the stakes were higher. Andrew Johnson, or Fillmore, or whoever, couldn't have harmed the entire world the way bush has, not to mention this country in the eyes of the world. Plus, the total tallies from his policies and decisions won't be fully know for decades, likely.

Thankfully(?), this is not a proper forum for this discussion, and I won't be spending much, if any, time debating or rebutting counter arguments. And let me point out (again), it's not just me saying it - most historians have already declared w to be the worst. Do a search - it's pretty staggering how uniform the opinions are among experts.

As to the poll question, there is no way the anwer is not bush. stanton's effects were minimal, on the global scale. stanton hasn't caused tens or hundreds of thousands to die. stanton's *local* effects may have been greater (try telling that to the families of servicemen from around here who've had loved ones killed or seriously wounded), but as the question is worded, if one is a true sentient human, the only answer is bush.

When is the last time any congress has rejected a resolution declaring war? The answer is never for anyone keeping score at home. Who wants to be the member of congress that kept America out of war when it needed to be in war? Hard to sleep at night with a clear conscious if you decide to go to war too late in the game. The Bush administration fired, silenced, outed(as in the case of Valerie Plame), or completely ignored anyone who disagreed with, or opposed the case made by the administration to go to war with Iraq. The eviendce that was compiled and given to congress as well as the UN for war was put together by the Bush administration.

The war in Iraq is only the most popular indictment on this administration, there is a laundry list of other poor decisions and bad policies. No Child left Behind, the steel tariffs instituted in 2002, The Patriot Act, the complete ineptitude in the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the nomination of Harriet Miers for the supreme court, complete focus on Iraq at the expense of Afganistan, Iran, and North Korea, the list goes on and on.

When it comes to fostering ill will from both American citizens and the rest of the world at large, W is 2nd to none. And yes that has direct consequences on America which is something this administration seems not to care a bit about.

His attitude was evident VERY quickly on entering office. Thumbing his nose at the Kyoto accords and announcing that we'd drill in ANWR ended any hope of his "compassionate conservative" persona he tried to promulgate. He has been one disaster after another - each topping the previous. "Unimaginable" truly is not an exaggeration when describing his incompetence.

I invite Mike White to come on to this board at this time and for him to address my so-called "fear" of him.

I certainly have yelled at him and called him enough names, to his face, that I am somewhat amused by that statement of yours.

Why is it for someone who actually shows themselves to have a bit of intelligence that you always have to put your foot in your mouth and make yourself out to be a smart-@ss, uninformed punk?

Complying with the Kyoto accords would have caused a depression in the US never seen. It would have dwarfed the Hoover depression.

The mainstream media says that Bush is one of the worst presidents ever? Wow, only a person with an IQ under 60 would find that surprising. When the media marketing machine with 95% support for one party controls the media for the undeducated (TV), the outcome in polls is not too surprising. What is surprising is the educated who have witnessed the complete failure of socialism and communism around the world keep pushing for candidates who want to take us down that hopeless road.

The next biggest disaster will be the Windfall Profits Tax from oil. For the undeducated, we did that once before. The oil companies will raise prices and oil will become hoarded. Next we will have shortages. Once again we will be wasting gas sitting in line at gas stations. The dumb only get dumber.

Oh yeah, Carter is probably the worst president of all time. Of course, he has now become clearly become the worst ex-president of all time. Please just build houses and stop embarrassing the country who unfortunately gave you a chance to become the worst president of all time.

Complying with the Kyoto accords would have hurt some segments of the U.S. economy. It would, however, have created an almost wholly new industry - one which is now growing despite this administration's reticence to smell the coffee. Even w himself finally has changed his tune (at least publicly). Again, this is not a proper forum to go into this topic, but the U.S. needs to be the LEADER in taking care of the earth God gave to us, not a follower - not a country coming late to the world table with economic ground to make up. The best way to get China, India, etc., to also clean up their act is to be an example. Then, and ONLY then, can we take the high road.

And gosh, I'm not about to get deep into the myth of the "liberal media" (that was true during Vietnam, but ended sometime after Watergate, and there are several academic studies so proving).

Anyone who thinks Carter was the worst president of all time clearly either means a) they *think* he was the most ineffective; or b) they don't understand.

I don't wish to take up valuable(?) board (cyber)space with these kinds of issues, but suffice it to say, sir, that you don't know climate science, nor apparently politics, either.

Sorry, but after the last presidential election a poll was performed to the members of the national media where 95% said they had voted for John Kerry. That is slightly after the Vietnam War if you had not noticed.

To say that Carter was ineffective is being very kind. He had an effect on the world that was clear for the United States, and it took one of the greatest presidents of all time to completely reverse the the Carter effect.

The Kyoto effect would have been a supersize scale of the Ethanol effect. The democratic congress decided to let the government "fix" the oil problem by manipulating the free market to subsizide the farmers and thus starving many people in the world with no saving of fossil fuel. Big government at work again!

These are the type of people we need running healthcare next so we can have a poor quality system that will cost all the taxpayers much more. Bigger government only hurts all of us. Anyone need a copy of the Constitution?

Back to the Bucs as we are obviously on the opposite end of the spectrum in politics.

Man! I love it when you guys talk political!! Smart and informed on both sides, so much for the theory that message board posters are only sport-literate, wanna-be's!!! This should really concern the powers that you guys can read the Wall Street Journal as well as SI!!!

BucinBama - it appears that you're a fan of ronnie, and assuming that's the case, you're right about one thing - we're so far apart and so sure of our own positions, that there's no point in discussing same.
I am not, nor ever was, a fan of ethanol "farming" - it didn't ever make sense. If we grew hemp and/or switchgrass, both of which are much more suitable for ethanol production in several ways, then one could make some argument, but the laws of thermodynamic efficiency limit severely any potential energy gain. Ethanol is at best an extender of our problem, at least in it's current guise. (By the way, Carter was the first president to try and get us into alternative energy research in a big way. He couldn't get Congress to back him.)

I *would* like you to post evidence of that poll you mentioned; even if it were true, what it really means is that those most informed, and who knew the most about the situation, stayed away from w in droves. It's akin to the poll done after either the 2000(?) election, if I remember correctly, in which about 90% (I'm doing it from memory, not quoting here) of Ivy League professors voted Democratic. Does that mean they're "liberal"? Probably, but it also means that what is arguably an extremely intelligent group of people who knew what was what - voted an intelligent way.
We now have been reaping and harvesting the rewards of the will of the uninformed.

The poll does not ask who the worst president was, just who people would rather see gone.

The fact ETSU fans are happier that Stanton's tenure is coming to a close speaks volumes.

He is Johnson City's answer to Walter O'Malley.

You won't debate this on this forum.

I've noticed that whenever you hold forth a truly ridiculous idea- such as the one that the Tri-Cities was all jacked up about the Bucs 1989 Tourney bid or that there is no liberal media bias- you continually hit and run.

There's nothing wrong with debating the merits or lack thereof of George W. on here. The board has become far more than a mere forum to discuss ETSU sports.

Rather, it has become an interesting case study for local culture- far more than any other message board devoted to local culture (such as the JC Press board or downtownjc.org)- and probably moreso than any other talk show.

In fact, since these discussions do often pop up on here, I think it proves the point that I've made for a long time that sports- not music or theatre or even politics- are the backbone of our culture.

Even in a bad sports town.

Growing hemp, now there's an idea I can get on board with

Those who beat the "liberal media" drum need to look at what happen two weeks ago when the "liberal media" tried its best to derail Barack Obama's campaign by running Jeremiah Wright videos on a loop. For all this talk of the "liberal media" it is the conservative right that controls the radio airways. Name any network in existence that equals the complete pandering to the right of Fox News. Where are all these champions of the left on TV, where are the equivalents to Glenn Beck or Bill O'Riley? Could it possibly be that 95% of those polled(which by the way is a completely different thing from 95% of the media) voted for John Kerry because they had seen enough of Bush up close and personal and wanted no part of another 4 years?

Since when did opposing George Bush equal you necessarily being a liberal? The president of ETSU's young republicans is not a Bush fan, should consider him a liberal now? If you voted against Bush in either of the last two elections I consider you an intelligent person first and foremost, Democrats or Republican. The major problems with this country politically is that we put people in a box based on one or two things. "Oh you're a republican, well you must support George Bush" or "Oh you're a democrat, well you must Gay marriage". And if you don't fall into the box? Well you must not be a true republican, or a true democrat, or a true conservative or a true liberal. Thats BS!!!!!!!!

Whats sad is that Reagan who many hail as one of the greatest U.S presidents in history is the person who first started this great divide in U.S politics. He started the "if you support A, then you are B. It worked for him too, he won elections by wide margins and is well thought of by many, BUT it was not good for the country IMO. Its the reason the two parties are further away than ever before, the reason there is so much hate and bitterness between the two parties, and the reason its so damn hard to get anything done in this country. Very few want to actually cross the esle and work with the other side because if they do they`ll be looked at like a traitor, or a maverick. So instead of a politician supporting or not supporting something because of how he actually feels or feels his constituents view an issue, now politician support what the party feels. Neither party wants to be seen as giving in to the other, or not putting up enough protest. So it takes one side completely controlling the house or senate in order for anything to get done, and even then if the president party is the one not in control of the house or the senate the president will veto, not necessary because he personally is against the bill, but because his party may be, or his party doesn`t want to look weak. And that is the legacy of Reagan to me more than anything, he further ripped this country in two, and we have been growing further apart ever since.

One of my friends calls me a liberal because I don't support the Iraq war. So apparently, opposing wars makes you a liberal now, even though my principles are mostly in line with conservatives.

True. But those who say they are more glad to see stanton gone are simply thinking too small and local - their view is myopic - that's my point. It's more *important* for bush to be gone - therefore, anyone who cares about the whole world should say they are most "glad" for that event (bush being out). One can be "glad" about small and large things. bush being gone is a much 'larger' thing than stanton being gone, thus it would seem the degree of "gladness" should be larger.

We've been over the 1989 thing too many times. You were in high school. I know your world was smaller than mine at that time (that's NOT a cut - just a fact). I got out more; I talked to other fans more; I was at the big party; people were talking about it all over town (maybe not in your high school circle of friends {an oxymoron?}, but they were in mine).

I "hit and run", as you call it, because I have a life outside of sports and out side of this board. I almost posted to the thread about "why is talk radio around here so boring" by saying, "BECAUSE *ALL* TALK RADIO IS BORING", but I didn't want to hurt feelings. And now I wish I'd stayed away from this board - life is too precious to be frittered away arguing with those too different from oneself.

No, there is nothing at all wrong with debating politics or whatever on here. My point is that there are too few people on this board with the requisite knowledge base to make it a worthwhile endeavour. Nothing personal against any person, or persons, but if one is going to talk politics, or climate science, or a myriad of other things far removed from sports, there are better sites with people with greater command of the facts - thus a more desirable and fruitful dialogue. That's all I meant.
My "hit and run" is not "hiding" - I fear no exchange of ideas - it's merely that I apparently have a broader range of interests than many here, and thus don't feel inclined to spend as much time here. In fact, this time I've taken the last few days to make the comments I have seems at least partly wasted, relatively speaking.

This is a sad - very sad - legacy of ronnie and newt and those guys. "Liberal" has become a bad word. It was not always such, and it is not now such in reality. The Bible, if one reads it, has what one would call very "liberal" viewpoints: bringing the tithes in, taking care of one's brother, one's family, widows, etc.; charitable giving; forgiveness; love; on and on.

The American public at large allowed the neocons to paint "liberal" as something meaning someone who would eat small children and kick dogs. The term "family values" was also corrupted into their own little definition.

I consider myself a religious conservative - but that, to me, means a liberal social viewpoint (in general) because I believe that is what the Bible teaches.

Very well said, BucNut22. I had not read your post when I posted mine about ronnie and the neocons. I take it you may be what most would consider a "young person". If that is the case, it is very heartening to see those in your demographic being able to see things clearly. Right. On.

LOL, yeah I fall in the 18-30 demographic that has been the talk of this election. BTW its really a tough call for me between Bush and Stanton because both have a major impact on my day to day life, and wallet.

What I find funny in this whole war debate is that the hypocritical nature of those supporting it. I got into an argument with some earlier this year about the Iraq war and he dismissively called me a pacifist(because obviously a pacifist is the worse thing in the world), I quickly pointed out to him that Jesus was a pacifist. You can`t imagine how quickly he tried to change the subject, and its like that for so many, they talk a good game about moral values and taking the high road, but only when it benefits their argument to do so.

Spoken like a true, self-admitted, NPR listener.

MSNBC.

Keith Olbermann is as far left as Rush, Hannity, or anyone is right.

Chris Matthews- who I like a lot by the way- is nevertheless considering running as a Democrat for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010.

Imus was very objective- neither too far left or right (he had his leanings but they generally balanced out). But when he was fired, MSNBC lost whatever "Middle of the Road" reputation it had (and I thought they had a lot).

Scarborough is essentially a token- the Alan Colmes of MSNBC.

I've also noticed that FOX does tend to have on guests with a right wing point of view, but CNN tends to have on guests with a left wing point of view.

Now, let me say this- BY DESIGN THE NEWS MEDIA WILL LEAN TO THE LEFT- ALWAYS.

One of my favorite jokes is from Unhappily Ever After- the old take-off of Married W/ Children.

There's one episode where the son is running for class president, but has no platform.

He asks his dad- "Isn't there an organization that thinks everything is right just the way it is now?"

"Yes there is son!"

"What is it?"

"THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!"

And there's a bit of truth to that. Obviously a conservative will not want change by and large because- by definition- HE IS CONSERVATIVE!

But the flip side would be that the liberals, the Democrats, etc.- want to CHANGE EVERYTHING!

Obviously both the ideas the GOP wants to keep everything the same and the Dems want everything to change is an extremist view- one said for humor in the sitcom.

But again, by design, the liberal will want change.

What the media wants to do is find the story that will be interesting.

What is interesting? The same old same old?

Of course not. What is interesting is change. Be it the elderly grandma whose life was changed by the thug that mugged her or the ballgame that changed the Bucs record from 18-36 to 19-36.

Therefore, by design, the media is generally going to be liberal.

Says who?

You?

This actually is fun.

Could you POSSIBLY be more pretentious?

Just in closing, I don't think that is true at all. If you look at the message boards dealing with area issues, if you listen to the talk shows, if you go to the BARBER SHOP, I don't think you'll have the free flow of ideas and the crossing of various cultures that you do here.

For one thing, I don't think too many other boards or talk shows talk sports.

And the ones that do generally are fearful to get into discussions of, say, how sports and politics or race mix, which we do not.

Absolutely. And proud of it.

And that's why you think talk radio is boring.

And it's not because of the political slants NPR does or does not take.

It's because their announcers generally broadcast with total monotones.

Exceptions would be something like Click and Clack.

And if you think Click and Clack are boring, then nothing short of getting struck by lightning is going to get a rise out of you.

Olbermann??????

Ok just because he hates Bill O'Riley's guts(something a lot of people on both sides do) and because he strong criticizes the Bush administration(also something people on both sides do) does not make him equivalent to Bill O'Riley on the left.

Nut, if that was all it was, I'd agree with you.

But the fact is even on Sportscenter he couldn't keep his liberal commentaries out of his reports.

Criticizing the Cleveland Indians for using Chief Wahoo as a logo, for instance. Even if you believe Chief Wahoo is offensive, such commentary is forced at best and inappropriate at worst when reporting "Tribe Sweeps A's."

Better to save that for a piece on, say, protesters outside of a game.

Now, on to Countdown. Once upon a time I very much enjoyed the program. I watched it as a Chicago bar blew up the "Bartman Ball," when Olbermann interviewed Mike Wallace following his wrongful arrest for "protecting meatloaf," etc.

But then I started noticing- the "Worst Person in the World" is never a liberal. Too much of the show was him criticizing O'Reilly- it was one thing to report that O'Reilly was suggesting a co-worker should use her vibrator, it was another to relish in the news.

That was unprofessional.

The final straw for me was in a show after the 2004 Presidential Election. You'll remember there was some inaccuracy in the exit polls- an overloading of interviewing women out of the polls and some undue influence by bloggers- that gave John Kerry more points.

Olbermann comes on and reports that a University of Pennsylvania professor said the odds of such innaccuracy- ASSUMING THE EXIT POLLS WERE DONE CORRECTLY- was 250 million to 1.

BUT THAT WAS JUST IT! OLBERMANN NEVER REPORTED WHAT ALL THE OTHER MEDIA SOURCES WERE- THAT SAID THE EXIT POLLS WERE INNACCURATE!!!!

And that was just it. I just lost all respect for the man. It was the very ESSENCE of liberal bias!

I just couldn't watch it anymore. I couldn't stand hearing him interview a reporter from The Village Voice at the end of the show make incredibly lame excuses for Courtney Love's behavior.

Again, it was the epitome of the liberal bias.

A liberal religious person is great. All tithes, charities, helping others, etc. are voluntary and help people understand what true commitment to the teachings of the bible is all about.

These things are not to become laws, forcing people to be nice to certain groups, redistributing wealth, and putting them into involuntary servitude. That is the definition of a liberal in today's society - forcing others to fund their special interest whims. The government is only to have a few distinct purposes, but the liberals want it to babysit everybody from womb to tomb. I am a liberal christian, but am a political conservative which seems to track what the bible is all about.

For example, helping to feed and minister to an homosexual individual using charitable funds is exactly what the bible teaches. It does say let's pass laws that are against biblical teachings so sinners will feel better about themselves (liberal social agenda).

What compares to the one news outlet labeled as conservative -Fox? This was a serious question? It is CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, New York Times, Newsweek, Time, etc. The other 99.9 % of the media. Talk shows are not part of the media who claim to be reporting the news. There is a big difference. Rush Limbaugh never claims to be objective. All of the above media outlets try to claim they are objective.

Liberal elitists from the Ivy League live in an insulated world. They are out of touch with reality. The only worse group is those who look to Hollywood for political guidance. People paid to live in fantasy worlds shouldn't be looked to as role models for understanding the real world.

BucinBama, well said!

Ok before we go any further in this discussion I have to ask, do you believe in the separation of church and state?

Its interesting that you would mention the role of government because the role of government is not to set morality. Yet the 2004 election came down to “moral issues” and “family values”, just a nice way of buttering up that it came down to gay marriage and abortion. The “liberal” social agenda is not about passing laws at all, Roe V Wade and the most recent legislation in CA concerning marriage was not about passing laws, but about undoing existing laws that fall outside the role the government is suppose to play.

As far as forcing people to do things involuntarily, people may not like it or agree with it but it is a necessary function of government. Why pay taxes at all? I don’t support the current war we are fighting in Iraq, yet my tax dollars go toward military spending, by your logic I should be free to refrain from paying taxes correct? According to conservative theology by strict definition the U.S government was wrong to step in and force states to integrate schools during the 50’s and 60’s, wrong to repeal Jim Crow laws. That falls outside the role of government right? It forced people to do things they did not want to do for the greater good of the country. Liberal theology is not about forcing people to do things it does not want to do, its about the greater good of a society. The country as a whole profits with a highly educated population and providing jobs for them once they graduate, the country as a whole improves by reducing poverty, homelessness, and starvation, the country as a whole improves by reducing pollution and finding alternative sources of fuel.

You are a self proclaimed “liberal Christian, but a political conservative” how is it that you do not see the irreconcilable differences between the two. How can you agree with so many aspects of conservative theology that are in direct contradiction to basic tenets of the New Testament? Do you not see it as hypocrisies for people to call themselves pro-life while at the same time being pro war and supporting the death penalty? Are the tenets of the New Testament pro-war, do they fall in line with supporting the death penalty? Jesus told the rich young ruler in Matthew to sell all he had and give it to the poor, does that fall in line with conservative political theology?

Ahhhhhhh yes, the predictable point in the discussion where most of my conversations with conservatives end.