Excuse me, but for you to begin the *debate* by asking if we would rather
Posted By: Libby on 2005-09-19
In Reply to: Pardon me, but... - SM
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. 
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
Excuse me but don't you find it more stimulating to debate things rather than to just
f
This is where it will begin
Any remark not directly supporting Obama is immediately construed as hate speech. Neither McCain nor Palin ever accused Obama falsely of anything, but since they brought up something questionable about him, you consider that hate speech.
This is where it will begin. It won't be long (at this rate, probably within months) before there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press; anything negative said about Obama will be called hate speech and racist.
Where do I begin?? sm
No pork!
No lobbists in my White House!
I will bring the troops out of Iraq (maybe he will but he's just sending them to Afghanistan instead)!
I believe that if a person will lie about one thing, they will generally lie about anything.
You cannot begin to understand the
he saw it coming, gave the pubs just enough rope to hang themselves with, had a plan and launched it. This must may be the October surprise we have all been waiting for. I am thrilled beyond words.
When does life begin? sm
You state that you apparently have a different view of when life begins as opposed to others, Shelly and myself for example.
My stance is that life begins in full at the moment of conception. Why? Because cell division begins at that point and body organs and systems begin forming very shortly thereafter. It is quite an amazing process, really. At 5 weeks, the neural tube has formed. At 6 weeks, the heart bulge has begun to form as well as the jaws and the buds that will become arms and legs. At 7 weeks, we have eyelids and elbows and fingers. At 8 weeks, we have a brain and hands and knees. At 9 weeks, earlobes appear as well as shoulders. At 10 weeks, the fetus is fully recognizable as a baby and at 11 weeks bones have begun to form. At 16 weeks, your baby has started to grow toenails. And on and on it goes that this living viable BABY grows. Can an inanimate lifeless object do that? Can your computer monitor grow fingers? Do the cells of your car multiply? No. A baby is something that is living and growing from the moment of conception and to take its life is murder and robs it of its civil rights as a human being.
That is how wrong abortion is.
Do you think that people will begin to take any job?
I was just wondering if you feel like with the economy the way it is that American workers will begin to take any job that is offered to them and that will make it harder for illegals to find work and therefore they will go home?
I just thought about it. A lot of the jobs that the illegal people have now are jobs that Americans really do not want to do. Well, it is beginning to look like if people want to eat, they are going to have to do whatever they can and may decide that those jobs are not so bad after all.
What do you think?
And the excuses begin....
any republican would have been castigated. Your bias is showing. Mine, at least, is out in the open!
I never believed he was there to begin with - nm
x
Maybe you could begin in another thread.
Day of Prayer and the absolute vicious lies about Obama's faith.
Just because you believe he lied about other things does not automatically make him a Muslim.
I mean, REALLY !?! Arrogance doesn't even begin
It borders on psychopathic.
Anything could happen - pigs may begin to fly too
x
Where do I begin about Palin flaws?
Lately I really hate how she is inflaming the crowds and trying to paint Barack as a terrorist. That's just plain wrong. I hate that she lies. I hate that she abused power. I hate that she could put our country and security at risk by having a high power. I hate that she is against abortion. I hate that she is against educating kids on sex issues, I hate that she is so backwards, I hate her 1980s blush, I hate her voice, I hate that her husband belongs to a fringe group trying to get Alaska to secede from teh union. I hate that she went to teh fundraiser with her husband for getting alaska to secede from the union. I hate that we are supposed to think she is worthy of Hillary supporters when all they have in common is a vagina. I hate the way she won't be interviewed. I hate the way she lowers herself to only go on Fox or talk to Rush and I cannot believe that repubs don't see the blunders of these moves. I hate that people say "she is a woman" as if that alone makes it progress even though she basically is not helping women at all. I hate that she left Wasilla with a pile of taxes and debt when she had gone in to a debt free town. I hate all the meth labs in her tiny town that nobody talks about. I hate how she pretends that only she and mccain supporters are patriotic. I hate how ...oh gosh... i can't talk about it anymore. I hate how she says she has a gay friend when she is against gay unions. I hate the way she attacks Barack. She is really really dangerous and way too right wing.
I can't begin to imagine what the parents must feel.
I would be so enraged if I were in their position that I'm not sure what I'd do. I hope I would remember that keeping my family together and supporting my child (or children if there are siblings) has to be a priority, but on the other hand, to know that this monster is free to walk the streets and do this to other children... I'm not sure I wouldn't do whatever was necessary to put him either behind bars or underground. I certainly couldn't condemn a parent in that situation who made that choice.
I really hope there is enough uproar over this to change things. Otherwise, what choice do people have to protect their children but to take the law into their own hands? These judges (and legislators, for that matter) need to realize that, like guards in a prison, government rules by consent of the governed. Fail to protect the governed or to enforce reasonable laws in a just manner, and the governed will assume control one way or another. I am not an anarchist by any means, but law and order is one of the most basic governmental responsibilities. We can argue til the cows come home about everything else we would or wouldn't like the government involved in, but if they fail on too large a scale in this most basic duty, vigilantism and anarchy become inevitable.
Hopefully, moderates in both parties will begin to assert themselves.
We've swung far to the right and now far to the left. It will be a good thing if the true majority of Americans re-take control of their government, and I think you'll begin to see that happening in the 2010 Congressional election cycle. With any luck, Obama will be a one-term President unless he can manage to once again hoodwink the American voters into believing he's a moderate. Can we be fooled twice? I hope not. Let's get a true moderate into the White House in 2012 - of either party, I don't care which.
This article does not begin to address the problems.
Going forward not but a few years, Social Security is a grave problem, but Medicare is a true crisis, and we won't be able to tax our way out of either, although the idiots will try.
These things ARE coming:
1. Tax increases. These will be of many different varieties, and from all levels of government.
2. Reduced SS benefits. This might be disguised in the form of raising the eligibility age, etc., but it will still be a reduction in benefits.
3. Healthcare rationing. We simply will not be able to pay the bill to provide everyone with the level of care that medical science is technically capable of delivering. Rationing will be done in two ways - by restricting access on some sort of a cost-benefit basis (if you're 80, you won't get that triple bypass), and by increasing the waiting times while forcing people to go through a series of less-effective but cheaper forms of treatment.
I continue to be amazed at the number of people - in government and out - who continue to stick their heads in the sand over these realities while we pile up debts that even China can't bail us out of.
Life doesn't begin 'til the cord it cut and the
Until then, it's just a fetus/piece of tissue/etc., and has no rights.
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,,
Obama didn't wait for his term to legally begin, he started on Nov. 5th.
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!
|
