Certified graduate of the *How to Insult like a kindergartener* school of insults. SM
Posted By: MT on 2005-09-11
In Reply to: You're full of S**T, Brunson Burner - LMAO!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
huh? He did this after school hours, in the catholic school...nm
nm
No need for that. His eligibility has already been certified
has been upheld in court challenges. Berg's case was not dismissed on BC evidence, making your outlandish claim about the seal rather ridiculous. It was dismissed because he could not prove standing and claims of harm. Why don't you try taking a stab at the other questino about just where the pub party is trying to take this? Biden as president? Supermajority still seated? New elections? What can they possibly gain from this folly?
Certified BC from HAWAII has been submitted.
Immigration hearings are no different than any other court proceedings. The lawsuit is dead in the water because he cannot prove anything one way or the other...unlike the DNC, who has proven their case over and over and over and over and over again. There is no issue here. Go dig up some more dirt.
If he has been certified already by the Secy of State
were not successful 74 days prior to the election (as spelled out clearly in the election code), his eligibility is upheld. Hence, the question about the timing of the challenges. Why did no one seem to care about the constitution in 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 or the summer of 2008. There was plenty of time to challenge this guy. Berg's lawsuit surfaced on August 21, literally minutes after it became apparent that Barack was going to seize the nomination and that his candidate, HC, would not be the VP pick. He filed his lawsuit 75 days out from the election, making it impossible to get a result in time to have Obama removed from the ballot. Can you say sour grapes loser. Book deal. TV movie. Attorney megalomania?
The birth certificate has been submitted to the DNC, the Illinois Secretary of State x3, the US Secretary of state x2 and to the US Regional court....all of whom have so far upheld its legitimacy.
What part of he has alrady been certified
It happened before the nomination for PRESIDENT. Like I said, if Berg the Boob was really worried about that constitution, he had From February 10 2007 until Summer 2008 to act. I notice you are not addressing that fact.
The officials in Hawaii have already certified
that he's an American citizen & released his original birth certificate. The fact that you're still spouting this nonsense & have never heard the term 'office of the president elect' before now shows that you rely too much on forwarded emails and Fox "news" for your in-depth information. LOL.
Did you graduate kindergarten this year?
This is an opinion piece from a graduate of
Will not be accepting this as gospel without further resarch and investigation. My gut's telling me somebody somewhere is trying to serve a partisan agenda. Pardon me while I go check a few facts, read the bill for myself and get a few more viewpoints before buying into this hook, line and sinker.
Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell University...
and you are a graduate of what?
they had to join a community service organization to graduate?
x
Why settle for a Harvard graduate who sees a vision of a kinder world.
I didn't believe him initially. I felt he had a hidden agenda, pay back time for the wrongs done to his ancestors until I saw his family photos, mom and grandpa as white as mine. This guy was raised as a white boy. And maybe that is why he expects more from the black men (raise your kids).
Give him a chance. Listen to his speeches over the years. Research him.
Though honestly, I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a New York minute.
Ah, more insults
is that all you can do?
Keep your insults
I did not bother to read past the first 3 lines of your post because you began your response by misinterpreting my post and you apparently are interested only in inflammatory response. It is the value of basic humanity I was referring to. Many of us remember a kinder and gentler America, more unified, an America where taking care of each other is not perceived as some sort of weakness or threat to our American values or way of life. Also, you do not understand the difference between democratic platform principles and socialist ideology. They are not the same.
Time for new insults. These are getting old!
Your *information* was filled with insults...sm
Sorry I don't meet your level of debate.
Maybe she just had her fill of insults from the other side
Another lib's perspective.
When did "conservative" and "liberal" become insults?
It seems to serve the purposes of politicians very well to encourage their followers to label, demonize and fear those who belong to "the other" party, and to paint them all with whatever nutty ideas the true extremists in the other party happen to believe.
The truth is that most "ordinary" Democrats are only a little more liberal than most "ordinary" Republicans, and vice versa, but we are encouraged to hate one another because this serves the purposes of the parties. Politics has become not a matter of which party offers the most persuasive platform of positive ideas, but seeing who can create the largest howling, mindless mob.
Put your "everyday" Democrat and Republican in a room together attending some nonpolitical function - say, for instance, a baby shower or a choir practice. They don't happen to know which party anyone belongs to. What kinds of things do you hear them talking about? What aspirations do you hear them express? You'll be amazed at how much they have in common, sharing concerns for good schools, safe streets, job security, affordable healthcare, and many other issues. The Democrat will be no happier about the increase in the sales tax than the Republican, and the Republican will agree that the current system of healthcare leaves too many people without options.
You're a liberal, and I'll bet that you're a moderate liberal. I'm a conservative, but I'm a moderate conservative. If we could get together outside of Washington, we'd probably come to some pretty workable, livable and even affordable solutions to the common problems that we all share.
Let's recognize what's happening to us as those in power in Washington find it useful for us to hate one another. Let's resist. And let's all see if we can't find some moderates in both parties that we can send to Washington who will truly represent who the American people truly are and what the American people truly believe when we refuse to be manipulated into positions of hatred toward one another.
Your insults persist, is your mind so tiny that you
..can't seem to debate or discuss? So you pile on more bashing and insults? You must be a very unpleasant person.
And by the way, I am an athlete and a weightlifter and my boyfriend says that with my mouth I don't need the muscle behind it. I am definitely not a sissy. Most of my liberal friends are athletes also and are definitely not sissies and we're not a bunch of fatsos either. As for AG stating that it must "stink to be" us, well she's wrong. It's actually really great! Many of the libs in the blue states are among the most educated, best paid, longest-living and healthiest and SLIMMEST folks, we're likely to stay married and we generally smoke less. So AG, you got it wrong about it stinking to be us -- kind of an unworldly and naive and cruel comment, I'd say.
Please point out the insults and I will address those posts. sm
In reading the board, I am not sure who the one poster you are referring to is. As far as Nina's post, I saw no insults. Please point them out. Until a poster identifies themselves as a certain political persuasian, how do you know who they are? I'd like a clue.
Sick of your insults - stop with the name calling
I'm sick of hearing "rabid republicans". You've said it in more than one or two posts. We have objective conversations on this board, but you don't want to hear anything that differs from your viewpoint. And whenever we bring up anything positive about McCain we are instantly cut down and called a bunch of names. All you want is to hear everyone praise Obama. We know you support Obama and in your own words "I don't. Big deal". The media is biased towards Obama and independent newcasters have even said so (and not on Fox only). However, Fox news interviews both sides and they are fair to both sides (and at least they look everyone in the eye - unlike liberals who interview McCain and won't even look at him). We understand the Obama supporters refuse to watch Fox because all they want to hear is praise for Obama and insults and cut downs for McCain. There is no tolerance on MSNBC, CNN and others liberal stations for anyone with a difference of opinions and nobody can have a decent conversation with them. I stopped watching a long time ago (and I was an avid watcher for the past 8 years but the constant put downs and lies just got to be too much).
I get a bit tired of hearing the same ol retoric of the republicans this or the republicans that and the "rabid republics". I have a few names myself for the other side but at least I have some respect for people with other viewpoints than my own. I listen, I research and if I ever find myself wrong I admit it. I find no tolerance on the democratic side with the exception of a few. I have relatives who are voting for Obama and you ask them what part of his plan do they support the most and they cannot tell you. They want to change the subject. That's what I find about most Obama supporters. Most cannot even explain what his plans are. Most keep shouting the same party line "Hope" hope, hope, hope, hope. Hope for what? Obama has not even explained what the "hope" is and nobody else can. Change? Change what? Change our constitution? Change our way of life? Change is not always for the better. "Yes we can". Yes you can what? Nobody can explain that either. The republicans at least have the foresight to know what McCains plans are about. The democrats in Washington have messed up the economy and they don't even have the you know what to admit it. They know it too. The republicans will be the first to admit its both sides fault because it is, the democrats just like to throw blame to the other side, but we all know the truth.
As for McCain getting in...we are all hoping that will happen and nobody will know til Tuesday.
Those ain't insults, they are observations! Man you guys R thin-skinned! LOL! NM
Insults do not an effective campaign strategy make.
nm
Wow, the vitriolic statements, insults, and downright hate being shown....sm
 on this board today (not unlike any other day, really), is amazing. Okay, we all have our ideals, our belief system, etc. But this board is a sad, tragic, IF very minute microcosm of why this country is so far in the dirt.........educated adults who will hate, insult, stamp their feet, stick out their tongues, and spew garbage rhetoric, RATHER THAN join with the country, the new president, the senate, congress, etc., and try to be part of the SOLUTION instead of the PROBLEM. We will NEVER fix this country, whether we have a democrat, republican, or independent in office, with pure hate and spite. This is a chance for a new start. Why not wait and see, why not pray for the president, teh cabinet, the Congress, and the whole nation, and try to work in our own ways for change. While we are busy hating each other, we are strengthening the real enemies out there who truly want to harm us. Everybody grow up. Both my parents went through the Great Depression, and I grew up knowing and seeing it written on their faces just how awful it was to try to live through. Instead of arguing and namecalling while the country teeters on the egde, why not TRY, why not wait to see before condemnining, why not see what each one of us, in our little lives, can do to help???
It is cold comfort to point fingers and laugh at the "other side" when both sides are falling into the abyss that is the growing national debt, growing unemployment, plunging stock market, while still mired in wars we cannot pay for. Discussing political ideologies, hopes, fears, and issues is great, pure scathing hate and animosity will insure more failure. Can you all not put our beautiful country ahead of everything else, the future of our kids and grandkids, stop childish fighting, and become part of the SOLUTION instead of the PROBLEM? Please?
Another one of several .... just here to insult
There doesn't seem to be any objectivity here. However, more important
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Liberals]
Posted By: Nina on 2006-03-09,
In Reply to: That's a little unfair - huh?
there seems to be no concern for what is going on in our classrooms. I am not talking about political bias, either. I am talking about WHAT THE TEACHER SAID. It's been recorded. There is no way to misinterpret it. I am AMAZED that anyone would defend it. But not surprised. Thankfully, not all liberals are so close-minded. And I AM thankful for that.
No, that would be an insult. sm
And I don't talk that way. Maybe you do. As far as slant, why do you keep coming here and saying the same thing? I go to several chat boards were both liberal and conservatives post and no one ever goes on like this.
Where's the insult?
Your response to the 3rd-party article was not intelligent. It was emotional and defensive. Statement of fact. You blow things out of proportion. Statement of fact. You take things too personally. Statement of fact. Like I said earlier, facts seem to elicit paroxysms of paranoia. Statement of fact.
I am right along with should not insult
the Smother Brothers like that.
Need new insult. Yours getting old. Look up on internet. Do better.
People watching.
Why insult my views?
I assure you my views aren't warped. They are my own personal views just as you have theirs. Your view of reality is not mine. I realize that the war on terror is going to be an ongoing war with it's inevitable ebbs and flows. I'll admit that I don't know if Bin Laden is alive or dead, but my gut feeling is that he is dead of natural causes. You are right, if we had caught Bin Laden the world would know it, although I don't know if it would be for purely political gain like you would think it would be. I'm sorry that you have to turn discussion of a topic into a personal insult towards me and my views, but I believe you hold a very polarized view of what is going on in the war on terror. I guess history will have to pan out what exactly is going on in this country, but I believe we are in a political civil war.
Not a sexist insult....
"we need our eyes on the gulf, not the skirt." Amazing. Kind of sucked the air right out of the indignant post.
That being said, I agree, we need to be thinking about those on the gulf.
And as to victimization...Sarah Palin doesn't think of herself that way, neither do I. However, the nastiness of the attacks on her only serve to make democrats look small, scared, and surly. And keeps the attention on her and not on their candidate. Not a good thing for him, really.
I dont know who are you to insult
you. I certainly do not know your husband. I did not read your post, if you are referring to one, so if you take particular posts on a board as aimed solely at you, that is not my problem, but yours.
please do not insult my intelligence
Why do people here do that? You do not know me so do know presume that I am "not familiar with workers' movements and do not keep up with the news." You do not have to accept my opinion; I do not have to accept yours. But please realize I have every right to hold that opinion and to express it. Just because i see it differently than you does not give you the right to demean my knowledge of the subject. I have lived on the side of those who were definitely hurt be unionization. My opinion comes from personal experience as well as other sources. I am outta here now.
There you go - another name calling insult
Can you try to have an adult convesation here instead of proving us right by repeatedly name calling and "trying" to ridicule those who don't agree with you.
Is an insult followed by **abound** all
You complain about insult and then
And frankly, I didn't see anything the slightest bit insulting to you personally in what he said. At worst, it was a bit sarcastic, perhaps, but sarcasm and insult are NOT the same thing.
You call that an insult?
Insult? NOT!
You have an odd definition of insult.
Michelle Obama was roundly hooted when she suggested that racism is anything that a person perceives to be racist, and here you are offering the same sort of definition. "Insult is anything someone considers to be insulting."
If you can't figure out the problems with definitions like these, I'll be happy to tell you - but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.
insult to all sane americans
To post something like this shows you are truly a bigoted fool. You know darn well, we of the left are not *dancing on their graves*. It is an insult that you posted this.
Do you think calling me a liberal is an insult? LOL
I dont run from the liberal label, friend, I'm proud of it!
I thought she did a FINE job overall. And I thought she was best at dodging the questions she didn't/wouldn't/couldn't answer - and repeating the MCBUSH mantra: ALL WAR ALL THE TIME.
Wrong, unfortunately you insult yourself, with every demeaning...sm
utterance, and it is YOU, my dear, who demean the rest of us.
I feel very sorry for you and your smallness.
First, I never feel "cornered". Second, what was the insult, please? NM
X
This was not meant as an insult, but as a question? With Rep everything is possible
Please, do not commit plagiarism. Do not copy and paste MY comment as your own, because you find my postings so excellent and intelligent that you have to use them to make a point.
Your mere presence on this board is an insult
Why don't you have any respect for the administrator of this board?
Go crawl back under your rock on the cantservative board. You bring nothing of value to this board and you're violating the administrator's repeated requests.
This is NOT a sexist insult for the poor, victimized SP.
Unbelievable. This is NOT about SP. What does she know about a mass evacuation of 5 million people? Not only does she need to stay away from us, she needs to be taken off the TV screen long enough to broadcast announcements of mandatory evacuation areas, evacuation routes, contra-flow designations on major highway systems, announcements from local officials in the affected areas and maybe just a little coverage on how to prepare for the onslaught of a category 3/4 hurricane in a geographic area of such dense population. Evacuations when done improperly are FATAL, as Houstonians found out during the evacuation for Hurricane Rita when 110 people lost their lives out on the roads trying to run from the storm. They are phased events and need wide-scale news coverage from any and all media outlets. This is about the 5 million people who are running for their lives. The comment was about the irresponsible news coverage and the spell that people seem to be under to the exclusion of even an tacit awareness that death is just around the corner for possibly hundreds of their fellow-citizens. You can live without SP media saturation for a day or two. We need our eyes on the gulf, not on the skirt.
You're too busy trying to insult the posters
that I even copy your own words and you argue against that. One poster said he has never run for President or Vice President and you replied to that post and said "Yes he has". Brother I keep saying its like talking to a brick wall.
First of all, if most Americans insult your superior intellect
by not considering "other view points" then I would suggest you go ahead and pack up and leave.
Second of all, the only thing a person will get from AL Jazeera is extremely biased against Israel. The entire middle east hates Israel. This has been well established. They are surrounded by enemies and even have enemies within their own borders -- Hamas which is why they invaded the Gaza Strip. Are they supposed to sit by and watch the Hamas terrorists send their suicide bombers to kill their civilians? Are they supposed to simple swallow the hatred and threats against their sovereignty?
You really shouldn't insult Dickie Smothes like that - LOL!
*
Republicans Insult the American People
Republicans Insult American People
by Aimee Franc
Right before Obama was elected, Republicans decided to "bailout" the banking industry. It was a socialistic move. But they didn't care because they knew Obama would be elected and that he would eventually take the fallout for it. People like those from Fox News wanted to make sure they continuously got that word "socialism" out there. Now that Obama is President (for only 3 weeks now) Obama is completely to blame for this entire economic mess. Fox news this morning just can't stop talking about it. Fox news acts like the economy is just a joke and Obama is just trying to be a fear monger. They laugh at Timothy Geithner. They laugh about the United States failing. Republicans in fact do want us to fail so that they can be reelected. Now does that sound patriotic to you? Do they really think the American people are that ignorant? Apparently some must be and I'm sure they'll be posting below.
This THING is a sham! -an insult to the country.
nm
No insult - just take a look at all her ranting, incoherent posts.....
A Rush Limbowel wanna-be....
|
