Bashing and discussion are two different things. sm

• FOR LIBERALS ONLY: 60 Minutes Interviews Iranian President Sunday. - Liberal
  • 60 minutes - Liberal and Proud
  • I've actually listened to what the Iranian president says.? - Hattie
    • This post was addressed to LIBERALS. - Liberal
      • Excuse me. - Hattie
        • No. You won't leave. You'll continue on. - Liberal
          • Oh, come on now Lurker. sm - MT
            • Lurker? - Liberal
              • Sorry, it's obvious I am bumfoozled. sm - MT
              • LOL. They think everyone supports Bush...sm - LVMT
                • No we don't. nm - MT
          • You are so right. I haven't posted here - in a loooooooooong time - sm - Starcat
            • Bashing and discussion are two different things. sm - MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

PLEASE.

This is the liberal board, or at least that what it says.  I don't understand why you guys have taken it over.

McCain's cross in the dirt story he tells now -- history of:

how similar the McCain story is to that offered by Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsen and then later popularized by Christian leaders Chuck Colson and Billy Graham. Sullivan also points out other suspicious changes:

The story changed from the guard using a sandal to the guard using a stick.

At Saddleback, McCain talked about a single guard being the protagonist. The same guard loosened his ropes and then later sketchd the cross in the dirt. In McCain's 1999 book, these were two different guards at two different prison camps.

McCain's first writings about his time in captivity didn't mention the story at all, so he's asked his readers for evidence of McCain offering that story prior to his 1999 book (when he was gearing up for a presidential run).

Several contributors to the comment thread on my first post have pointed to this rather stunning New York Times piece from 2000 in which McCain tells the story but about someone else!

Many years ago a scared American prisoner of war in Vietnam was tied in torture ropes by his tormentors and left alone in an empty room to suffer through the night. Later in the evening a guard he had never spoken to entered the room and silently loosened the ropes to relieve his suffering. Just before morning, that same guard came back and re-tightened the ropes before his less humanitarian comrades returned. He never said a word to the grateful prisoner, but some months later, on a Christmas morning, as the prisoner stood alone in the prison courtyard, the same good Samaritan walked up to him and stood next to him for a few moments. Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt. Both prisoner and guard both stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away.

seeing black men run through the house, black arms coming out from under the bed, and several people talking to Jesus in the flesh?  Okay then.  I will bow out.

Leaving criminal penalties out of the equation:  Is it immoral to break the law? 

What if you consider the law immoral (such as, for example, segregation)?  What if you consider integration immoral?  How much does individual conscience have to do with this?  Easy to say someone else's conscience is in error, but they are saying the same about yours.

Some people try to short their taxes because the money goes to fund a war they do not believe in (there's usually one going on) or to fund abortions, or medical research they abhor, and now to bail out failed businesses and individual mortgages.  I think everyone could find something that's funded by our tax money objectionable.  How much are we morally required to render unto Caesar?

It's illegal to overstay a parking meter.  Is it also immoral if you did it intentionally, simply because you've violated a law?  How about sliding through a red light at 3 a.m. on a deserted country road when you could not possibly injure anyone? 

If it's legal to raise rent past a tenant's ability to pay, is it also moral?  What if this makes them homeless?

for employees to have their health benefits taxed as income. 

I don't care what his views are or what he is.  What I do care about his what he teaches kids.  Sending them to his conservative website for homework in my opinion is way out of line.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the language used by the poster above, which is what I was talking about before you tried to change the subject, as usual.

"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."

Moving over here per Mod request.......

Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush.  I was just saying that the names are uncalled for.  Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.?  Just curious. 

President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree.  I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views.  I do plan on voting for John McCain in November.  But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess. 

I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country.  I would not want the job in a million years.  I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility. 

I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.

brought to you by the True Believers.  distract, distract. blame the clintons.

This argument validates the lawsuit, so it would seem to not be so frivolous.  Can't argue about the facts.

************************************

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between " December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which mea ns though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16 It doesn't matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent.

 Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/bop_9-2.html

Very good discussion of the political ramifications of the current governmental failure in this emergency - includes New York Times columnist David Brooks, a Republican with some rather surprisingly accurate statements.