The Tea Party also gave us Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angles...  Both solid conservatives, both lost seats that could have been won by more moderate conservatives.

I agree, I don't want Karl Rove picking our candidates, I'd love to have more candidates like Bill Whittle, how do we get them?  We haven't done so hot picking them ourselves.  Karl Rove picked George W. then got him elected twice.

Judy Wanniski taught me economics, and supply side economics, with "The Way the World Works"

Surprisingly, Thomas Friedman wrote the book on globalization with "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" I'd prefer no one mentions I've recommended Thomas Friedman though.
Russ Roberts has continued my education on economics with his ongoing "Econtalk".

Maybe "Jacobins" all too fitting.

I don't want to give them "liberal" in any way, because they aren't liberal in any way.

Franco- I quite agree, which is why I'd like to see a new word used, "Leftist" works as would "Statists" but neither captures the trouble with those on the left, they are a little too generic.

While they certainly believe in utopia on earth, I'd hate to concede them that ground, only because they may adopt it too readily.

Erowhonians is great, though I did have to look it up, and it doesn't exactly roll of the tongue.  Granted we'd have to explain "Harriets" as well...

While all socialists are leftists, not all leftists are socialists, I'm not against disparaging, but the label doesn't quite fit.

There are two authors I'd recommend to you, John Shelby Spong, author of "Recliaming the Bible for the Religious" and "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" and the author Marcus Borg who wrote "Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time".  Both take a look at Christianity and religion in the modern world and do an excellent job.
In your initial post you ask:

"if you are laying out the rules of the universe, why pick such a strange method as to hide your existence from everyone but a small handful of people at a few specific points in history and then have them relay their highly suspicious-sounding accounts rather than just making your universal laws plainly available with God's unquestionable imprimatur? "

Because God gives her message to the people who need it at the time, never the whole truth because we wouldn't understand it, also not to choose one people, but gives different messages to different people.  The blind men and the elephant is the result I'm afraid.  Muslims in the 7th century required a different message than Jews in the 1st century or Mormons in the 19th.  That is what I choose to believe.

I quite agree with Andrea, I see nothing wrong with the photo spread and think they were artsy and tasteful.  As to why she did it, I do think it requires bravery for a woman to pose nude, different for men, we revel in being naked, but for a woman it is baring the soul.  Just watch any episode of "How To Look Good Naked".

There is only on reason anyone believes, because they want to.  Two people see the same thing, what ever it might be, a person who wants to believe will see God in what he has seen, a person who does not want to believe will not see god in what he has seen.  A person who does not want to see will always be able to explain why what has happened was an act of nature while a person who wants to believe will always find a reason why God's hand played a part.

You are in a tough spot Clandesteyn, as you don't know if you want to believe or not, you'd like a sign, you'd like a little more proof.  I've stood where you stand and decided I wanted to believe.  I still don't see proof, but believe because it works for me.  If you decide to believe, the next step is finding belief that suits you.

No pay and no pensions?  I'm sure we'll attract some real quality then.   I'm fine with congress being well paid, I'm also all for our military and vets being well paid too.

Really?  Then we can lose the Eric Cantors, Paul Ryans and Marco Rubios as well.  I think politics requires experience, term limits would just usher in different incompetent legislators while removing the good ones we have now.  So no, no, no, no!!

Married, yes.

1. Me, 31 my wife 34.

2. first marriage for both of us.

3. married for 3 years come January.

One child 18 months, my wife is Samoan/Irish, raised in New Zealand where we live now, she has twin girls from a previous relationship, they are 18.

I think you need to define why people think marriage is a good thing, if a man or woman stays single for life and has no children, I don't see this is bad for society, even if it does have effects on the individuals (married couples tend to be less happy, married couples tend to live longer).  Certainly going through life with a partner, in general, has its advantages: financial, stability, etc.

But when it comes to families and raising children, marriage is of the utmost importance.  Raising children in single parent families is difficult.  Single parent families have higher poverty rates, less home ownership, etc. 

My wife, who raised two girls on her own (and did an excellent job) agrees she did it the wrong way and feels two parents is the proper way to raise children, even two parents of the same sex.

On presidents, my knowledge is okay, better than most, but still far from great, and in the 19th century, I can name a handful, and tell you very little about any of them save the big ones, T. J., Ab, Grant, a little about Polk...  Will people in 2080 remember Reagan?  Kennedy? Bush?  I'm not sure they will be.  200 years from now, I'm not sure any of them will even get a footnote.

Avoid wearing these kinds of shoes if you want a wife as well...