Excuse me but don't you find it more stimulating to debate things rather than to just
Posted By: have your back patted on this board? nm on 2005-09-16
In Reply to: All libs, please read. - VH
f
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- All libs, please read. - VH
- Excuse me but don't you find it more stimulating to debate things rather than to just - have your back patted on this board? nm
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
Excuse me, but for you to begin the *debate* by asking if we would rather
have our *backs patted* is, in and of itself, confrontational. Back-patting is what happens routinely on the conservative board, and they've even brought that to this board, as well, as any objective person can see below.
Obviously, you don't find your comments rude and confrontational. I respectfully disagree.
And I seriously wish you a wonderful day, as well. 
You're just trying to find an excuse for what's
A 5 year old could give that answer if I woke him up in the middle of the night. You guys have gotta STOP making excuses for this man. THat's is all I've seen on this board, one excuse for him after another. It's a shame when you constantly have to find excuses for someone who obviously has an agenda only those like yourself are not smart enough to figure out. And, what's worse, the big economic plan he has put right under your nose, he also knows those like yourself won't even stop and ask wait a minute, exactly how are supposed to pay for all these social programs? You just don't wanna know because you hide your head in the sand and I'm sure one day will pull it out when you have no choice.
BTW, I ain't a McCain supporter, so please don't try the McCain tactics some of you only know how to do.
Excuse me? So it's only allowed to say bad things
The first person stated republicans are strange. The first person could hardly know every republican in the USA and her statement was inflammatory. The second person returned the observation, and you say "typical," as though you know who posted it and what is typical behavior of that person? Tsk. You disappoint me, oldtimer. Here I thought perhaps you'd be a voice of reason. First you say stop petty attacks and then you stoop to flinging yourself. Talk about lack of credibility. You're either with them or against them. Did you decide if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
Lurker, to me, took things personally. You can't do that in debate.
Were you ever in FORMAL debate class? Say in high school or college? No one attacked Lurker and the conversation was civil. The end result was that people ended up thanking each other, Lurker included. Try not to wspeak for every liberal on the board. I would resent it if I were them. If you could switch from attack dog mode for a few minutes, you would have seen the whole thread for the really great debate that it was until Lurker decided to take it personally.
You call that an excuse? There are plenty of churches that offer those things!! nm
x
Why is it that you always find a way to twist things...sm
to your advantage? We went from Michelle Obama's thesis to Rev. Wright. Of course he is a racist. Has anyone here said he isn't?
I always find it funny how the left and right interpret the same things...(sm)
differently.
I saw the news programs today and yesterday this poster is talking about, and I can't quote you exactly what he said either. But she did tell you in general terms what he said. Obama also warned of how much this is going to cost us, in the trillions...but that it had to be done NOW. That seemed to be fear mongering to me too. Maybe not to you, but it did to me.
And yet, since she can't back it up quote something to your satisfaction, you have to say she's spewing garbage?
I always thought you were fairer than that, JTBB, and more intelligent than resorting to this. I guess you aren't, though.
Point being: Couldn't he find a church that offers those things sans the racism and hate mongeri
Many, many of the larger churches throughout the US offer those. My church offers almost every single one, excpet maybe the quilting and drill team. I am sure he could find something "consistent with his life experiences" elsewhere....unless racisim and hatemongering are also part of his life experiences.
Stimulating Illegals
Investor's Business Daily 03/12/09
Economy: At least 300,000 of those stimulus jobs will go to illegal aliens who are likely to send that money home to their native countries. Just whose economy are we stimulating?
The stimulus package is supposed to stimulate the American economy and create American jobs, but missing from it are measures to guarantee that. As a result, say both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies, hundreds of thousands of these jobs will go to illegal aliens, and much of the money they earn will not be spent here.
The original House version included a provision requiring employers to check registration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. This provision was missing from the Senate bill and was not in the final version sent to President Obama.
The Obama administration has also delayed at least until May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. It was supposed to take effect in January.
Last Tuesday, 75 representatives of both parties sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner urging them "to protect taxpayers and legal workers by including these critical jobs protection provisions in any future economic recovery legislation."
In a February report by the Heritage Foundation, senior research fellow Robert Rector looked at the 2 million construction jobs the stimulus is supposed to create. "Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work," he concluded, "it is likely that 15% of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants."
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, comes up with the same figure for construction jobs based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and other independent findings that 15% of all construction workers in the U.S. are illegal aliens.
Camarota says the total number of stimulus jobs going to illegals may be higher. At least a million more jobs are said to be created by the stimulus, and with 5% of the overall U.S. work force consisting of illegals, they could get another 50,000 non-construction jobs.
Rector sees another downside. "The fact that illegal aliens send a substantial portion of their earnings abroad reduces the stimulus effect that their employment has in the United States," he says.
Remittances, Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income after oil, dipped 3.6% to $25 billion in 2008, compared with $26 billion the previous year, according to Mexico's central bank. Will our stimulus improve Mexico's economy?
"It's outrageous that in a bill designed to provide employment for Americans, Congress has deliberately chosen to allow jobs to be given to illegal immigrants," Rector adds.
We think so too.
Since when are you the judge of what is more stimulating on a LIBERAL board?
I don't find anything you write to be stimulating, intelligent, educational or worthy of debate. And as far as patting people on the back, that's what you do on the Conservative board. You bash liberals, ALL liberals, EVERY LIBERAL IN THE WORLD, and then the people with the crudest, rudest insults against liberals are patted on the back and high-fived by the rest of you.
Liberals don't discuss things like Repuglicants do. We would rather be civil with people and find you incredibly distasteful human beings. They obviously call you neoCONS for a reason. Your posts are nothing but litter...trash...garbage, and I for one, can't relate to and don't want to communicate with people who do nothing but prove how ignorant, childish, hateful, nasty, untruthful and uncouth they are. Is this really the image you want to portray of your party? Because that's what you're doing.
Why can't you just be happy on your own board and stay away from people who have asked you repeatedly to stay away because we're not interested in your rhetoric and your attacks? Or, like your president, aren't you happy unless you're destroying things?
typo - meant cite things as hoax, not "site" things
Just thought I'd correct that before I get pummeled by the people who want to believe snopes is a truthful organization.
Debate, lets debate
Honey, I dont know if your problem is Alzheimer's or Parkinson's but I have debated all over this board..I have tried and tried again and again to debate with your cohorts..It starts out okay and then your conservative friends start attacking and it continues through the debate to where then there is no longer a debate. I ask for you to check the archives and you will see this..nothing but personal attacks against me, which then I attacked back..Debate..lets debate..I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE WITHOUT ATTACKS..Place an issue and lets debate..Who knows..my consciousness might be raised or yours might be..Lets do it,,
find out. I find sam's posts to the point
nm
I couldn't find that one but I did find this
S.Amdt.4170: To protect families, family farms and small businessees by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividents and capital gains.
NAY: Biden and Obama YEA: McCalin
I.E., this is in the voting record in the public records. There are not too many voting records there for the O since he started his campaign and most of those he voted NAY or say Not Voting.
Well, then, please find me one that you find to be racist.
You do not know how to debate
you are the biggest hypocrite ever. I was debating with you, but just because you didn't like what I said you said I was attacking you.
Again, you're are a sad individual....hateful sad individual.
As far as I see it, there is no debate.
This country has gone to the dogs. We are now just another *invading* country, with no morals, no Constitution, nothing of which to be proud. We have a lying, warring regime taking us down with them, taking our freedoms, spitting on the Constitution, tearing the very fabric of this country, and you see nothing evil about that? That, my fellow American, is what I cannot comprehend. Furthermore, Iraq was not our enemy. The Bush Family MADE him our enemy so that our very DEMOCRACY would be eroded to the point that we won't even recognize by the time he is out of office. And you don't see any EVIL in that? WAKE UP, Smell the coffee, or even the stench that wreaks from this regime.
Debate
One of the biggest problems that we have today is our inability to have intellegent discussions. The previous commenters irrational, over-wrought statements, frought with conspiracy theory, does an excellent job of proving that point. There is plenty of grist for calling those in power to task for their actions and decisions without foaming at the mouth. Oh, how I long for the days of the old boy's club of the congress before the eighties when people of conscience could disagree on substance, still be fast friends and treat their political opposites with respect and decorum. I'm contuinally amazed how the most vocal and extreme ascribe nefarious motives to others. This seems to be, almost exclusively, an affliction of the left. Without this intellectual pollution, we might be able to actually find common ground.
Debate me...
First it was that **we couldn't debate,** now it is ** persecution.** When did I say I was persecuted. I merely said the Crusades have been seen in a negative light for as long as I can remember and suddenly they are being seen in a good light. That's all, kaput, the end. Martyr...don't think so.
I don't know how you can live with such disdain for all liberals and all Arab peoples and have any peace or joy in your life. That is a full-time job, being angry.
debate
Hillary all the way -
No need to debate this...because I see it as the same and you do not....
I listened to AL Franken on Air America quite a few times...that was mild, and it was not a joke. He meant it when he said it. I find that offensive. You do not, probably because Ann Coulter did not say it talking about Democrats. Face it, if Ann Coulter had made the same comment Al Franken did, substituting Democrat names and Democrat for Republican, you would not say Ann Coulter was obviously joking and ignore it. That is what I am talking about...you can see exactly what Ann COulter did wrong, but blow off Al Franken as obviously joking. I just don't get that kind of rationalization, sorry. No offense meant...just don't understand it, and it seems so prevalent on the left side of the house. I mean, I can say Ann Coulter was wrong and that both statements by both people were offensive and wrong. You can agree that what Franken said was tasteless and classless, yet he gets a buy as *obviously joking." I just don't get why you can't just say both were wrong and leave it at that...Coulter has to be worse and Franken gets a buy.
Debate
Once again, this is a subject I feel very strongly about. I applaud anyone who broadens their education by learning a foreign language or learning anything new for that matter.
That being said, I believe that anyone who wishes to immigrate to THIS country should wish to embrace our language, our customs and our way of life, not the other way around. I am speaking here of the illegal INVADERS. I imagine that those who become citizens through legal channels, most likely learn English. I am sick to death of hearing babbling everywhere I go, to the grocery store, to restaurants, everywhere. My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY from Ireland and Germany. The other side of the ancestors were herded up and driven to a reservation like so many cattle. I live next door to the Cherokee Nation and not once have I heard them speaking in their native tongue outside of their Powwows, although they strive to keep the language alive. They don't require a press 1 for Cherokee on every telephone message system.
If this language issue isn't enough, it infuriates me that the Mexicans can come here to OUR country and march in their demonstrations while waving their MEXICAN flag.
Unfortunately, the reason we have to learn THEIR language to commuicate is most likely the majority who enter our country illegally are ignorant in even the most basic education and thus not likely to be able to learn a foreign language i.e. English.
You are correct, if we aren't willing to stand up for the heritage of our country; we may as well learn the language as one day we will most likely be part of Mexico and Spanish will be the official language.
debate is on
per debate commission and Obama. Let's rock.
debate
i will probably watch on cnn. i do not want to miss a word or a fumble/jumble confused silly look on anyone's face. I am my own best commentator and so will listen to the commentators after the debate.... one candidate is really not overly intelligent. i will see how well he was briefed...looking forward to the comedy !
I too think that this debate could have
been more indepth and not just the same old ho hum we have been hearing since the start. Then again, it was only the first debate and hopefully they will get better. We have a right to hear specifics from both candidates. We have a right to see them put on the spot to see how well they handle themselves. I want specific questions directed to each candidate and I was specific answers with details. I don't want just a pleasant little Q&A session of fluff.
On the debate....
I was kinda struck by how Obama kept harping on the 10 billion a day (was it?) spent in Iraq...but talking about more troops to Afghanistan. Three brigades I think he said he would send. Okay. So, we are just going to transfer the 10 billion a day to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Still going to spend it, just in a different place. I was almost yelling at the TV at McCain...ASK HIM ABOUT THAT. lol.
All kidding aside....what I took away from it was Obama leans heavily on Joe Biden for the foreign policy stuff because he is just out of his element. I thought Obama looked uncomfortable, and I got really tired of the smirk after awhile.
On the other hand...in all fairness, John needs to drop the "Miss Congeniality" line. I was talking to the TV again..."we know, John, we KNOW." lol.
I think what makes Obama dangerous is his world view. I do not say that to be mean....I just don't think he is realistic about it. On the one hand he praises General Petraeus (that he got right), and turns right around and won't own up to the fact that the surge worked (even though O'Reilly got him to admit it). Just goes back to the war was wrong. The country is still divided on that. You can't turn back time...and to lose it now would be wrong. Petraeus DID say Obama's plan for a timetable was wrong. I would think more of him if he would say "okay john, you were wrong about the war, but we're there and can't change that. And I was wrong about the surge." I know...dream on...lol.
It was a little alarming to me, facing what we are facing with this "rescue" bill, he STILL talked about spending bazillion dollars. He would not, when pressed, name ONE thing he would put on hold. That just makes NO sense to me, with the "rescue" bill, the deficit, owing money to China yada yada....and wants to fund that stuff with stiff taxes for business...in a down economy. Sorry, I think that's NUTS. Sorry....that also tells me he is either not real smart, or trying to get the vote of people who can't see past "he is going to lower my taxes and give me free health care." I really don't think he is not really smart, so if he gets selected he will be saying "I wanted to do these things, but the economy won't let me."
I have heard people talk all morning (on the Dem side) about how he mentioned the middle class and John McCain didn't. Frankly, the way it appeared to me, was Obama was pandering to the have nots and McCain is not going to promise something he knows he couldn't deliver in the economic situation we find ourselves in. I thought it was kinda patronizing actually. McCain understands that small businesses and yes, nasty corporations, drive this economy and employ a huge number of Americans. In an economic downturn higher taxes on businesses does not work.
Another thing I think McCain should have JUMPED on is that Obama supports the Hank Paulson rescue plan endorsed by Bush and John McCain doesn't like it as it stands. Obama is siding with BUSH! Oh well....lol.
in this debate
the results would be the same no matter who the moderator or modulator or referee or interpretor was.
Debate
After watching the debates I have finally made up my mind. We can not afford to have the angry, unstable John McCain in the White House. He was not only angry, he was sarcastic. My husband and I kept laughing waiting for him to explode. I happen to live in a state that is leaning toward McCain. I notice on the local TV station's forum, 5 people who have been avid McCain supporters have said they changed their mind after watching the debates. It was evident that Obama was angry a couple of times, and I don't blame him but he never lost his "cool."
The race issue is going to play a part in this election but I wonder, has anyone considered that Obama is both black and white? Maybe, just maybe, he could be the one to finally put the race issue to rest. Many blacks will vote for him because he is "black." Many whites will not vote for him because he is "black." Ridiculous. He is equally black and white. Since Lou Dobbs is not running in the first place, he has no chance of being elected. I have decided I will take a chance on Obama. If he turns out to be the worst president in history, well, I'll come back and say I helped elect him. The only real issue I have with him is that of his church affiliation. I noticed that was not brought up in the debate so I can only assume that McCain has investigated that thoroughly and found that there is nothing there that would benefit him.
And as for "Joe the plumber"........I have no doubt that with his notoriaty he will own his own plumbing company but what about my son, "Bill the plumber" who also aspires to own his own plumbing company? My son, "Bill the plumber" has been inclined to vote for McCain but doesn't think either candidate will help him own his own company and neither do I.
I didn't hear anything about "Jane the MT." What about all the MTs who can't find a job? That might be a good talking point.......did anyone notice that Obama wants to reduce medical costs by putting medical records on the internet? Can anyone say bye-bye medical transcriptionists? Of course that is already in the works so really won't make much difference.
debate
I agree. McCain cannot hide his shifty, deceiving body language. He blinks more often and quicker, and he doodles on paper rather than being comfortable making eye contact with Obama.
No one in this world can perform miracles, per se, but I feel that Obama has integrity and diplomacy and really wants to try and better the multitude of conflicts this nation is under, in a realistic but motivated fashion.
Actually during the last debate
He said "when I am president" quite a few times. Just FYI.
Thanks for the debate, its been fun
I think we both have valid concerns. Here's hoping things turn out better than they are now.
Almost a different debate entirely
This thread was started with no differentiation made between Radical Islam and the more moderate practitioners. Do you believe that evangelical christians are a religion? How about the fundamentalists? I personally consider all of them (radical, evangelical, fundamentalists) to be a religion, albeit one that may not necessarily hold the same values as the broader category they fall under.
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
|
