Obama cannot single-handedly sign this bill into law.
Posted By: It is in the Judiciary Committee...sm on 2008-10-30
In Reply to: "The First thing I will do as president is sign the FOCA" sm - MeMT
It has not passed the House and Senate. Nobody can predict the course that bill will take during legislative process. As president, he has clearly stated he will pass it, rather than impede or veto it. He cannot PROCLAIM FOCA into law. Any discussion beyond that is purely speculation.
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
Obama cannot single-handedly enact FOCA.
No one can predict what will happen to the language of that bill throughout that process. Obama has merely indicated that he will not impede or veto it, but rather will sign it, which is as it should be once it makes it through the House and Senate. That's the way democracy works, is it not?
That would explain why the libs were single-handedly
the rise of the Beat Generation, the counter-culture revolution of the 60s, the success of the civil right's movement and the VietNam, Gulf War and Iraq anti-war movements, not to mention the fact that they have been champions of all sorts of dissenting opinions/movements. Advocating for Palestinian statehood comes to mind.
I do NOT think that Obama DARES to sign this bill
what's next then?
Legalizing murder, rape, etc.....with the justification that it is only 'A DISEASE?'
The world is coming to an end!
He has already said he would sign this bill
XX
and you agree with ever single thing Obama says
Knock yourself out--but I prefer to think for myself. I only pick the candidate I think is best--not perfect
just stole an Obama sign for my yard -- anyone else?
heck, they had two of them and i wanted one... just couldn't help myself. turned off the car lights, snuck up in the field, snatched it and sped away... now my yard is adorned with a lovely Obama sign... so bad, but feels so very, very good.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Still more than Obama has. As much as Bill Clinton had...
when he was elected President, not VP. If he had enough experience to be Pres with only experience as a governor, so has she. Can't have it both ways.
Hillary and Bill do not REALLY want Obama to win.
nm
What bill was Obama talking about?
During the debate he stated the reason he did not vote for the bill presented in Illinois regarding babies that live through abortion is because there is a bill that already addresses this? Or did I miss something?
Anyone heard about Obama's bill...
for children 18-24 to do mandatory military time. I heard this, but don't know if it is true or not...
Exactly...but Obama is still pushing his Global Poverty Bill.....
It is designed to send BILLIONS of our hard earned dollars to Africa and other 3rd world countries to cut poverty there by half.
How can he cut their poverty by half?? He should be worrying about OUR poverty. Which is a telling point in my mind. Why is Obama so bent on giving OUR money away? I don't know about you, but I don't need the govt' telling what to do or not do with my money. I earned it, I have the final decision.
Lessons Obama learned from stimulus bill
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.ahead/index.html?iref=nextin
According to Bill O'Reilly...Obama moving ahead in polls! (nm)
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
Not a single new job
(unless we are talking about hiring new staff to do all that teaching....wonder if it takes a PhD....) And since PA is a liquor 'control state' i.e. the State runs the whole booze operation, it's not as though the customer can go get their hard liquor from some private enterprise down the street where the help might be more knowledgeable. No matter where you buy whiskey in a control state, you are getting it from the State.
Businesses only need to spend money on marketing and product education if they have to compete for your money.
You will sign *anything they ask you to*
That is such a typical party line statement, it took my breath away. I am not saying that questioning and challenge is not good. It is. But just joining in without question is frightening. It reminds me of Nazi Germany. By the way, Not in Our Name is not what they seem to be. I really question your causes, but certainly not your right to participate in them. I would hardly wear being arrested, for whatever reason, as a badge of honor. It isn't. There are many ways to support a cause and do it legally.
'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS
By BYRON YORK
The organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a
small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar
effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one. The
group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and
today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the
defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's
regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern
terrorism.
The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing
activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist
Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the
International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild,
among others.
There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be
inclined to sign the statement )in opposition to a war on Iraq) might not
want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group
created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement
(which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and
the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street
demonstrations and other protests).
Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently.
Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than
creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called
fiscal sponsors - that is, already established foundations that could use
their tax-exempt status for fundraising.
THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small
box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights
Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name
Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue
Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do
with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar raised by the group for
several years went to the legal defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted
cop-killer whose case has become a cause célèbre among some on the Left.
In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which
$95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the
foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in 1999,
the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to Abu-Jamal's
lawyers.
At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team, leaving
the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002, it hooked up
with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president Judith Levin sees the
Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war as closely linked. They're
related as a matter of principle, she explains. The connection is the
violation of civil rights of people in this country.
FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another
foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community
Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to advance the
struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination, IFCO was
originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a variety of activist
organizations that lacked the resources to raise money for themselves.
In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization called
the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their partnership ended
when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt foundation). Founded in 1997 as
a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, the coalition says its function
is to oppose the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.
Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of
South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for alleged
ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's board.)
According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is accused of
having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by another charity he
runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also reported that FBI
investigators suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a fund-raising front' for
the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from the late 1980s to 1995.
Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University
of South Florida to raise money for one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job
Shallah held until he later became the head of Islamic Jihad.
TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to the
Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy to
supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite of
IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a
solidarity conference in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, Long live
the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example of the
Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for the poor of
the world by Fidel Castro! Both IFCO and the Bill of Rights Foundation are
tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that all contributions made to
them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban solidarity rallies, or the
defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully tax-deductible.
The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records available
for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took in $1,119,564 in
contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not In Our Name Statement
report that they have taken in more than $400,000 in recent months for the
purpose of publishing their statement. It is not possible to say who is
giving the money, or whether it comes from many people or just a few;
federal laws do not require tax-exempt foundations to reveal their donors -
or even whether donations are received from inside or outside the United
States.
'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together, says
the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak, one might
think that is actually happening, that there really is a broad-based
movement represented by these activists. But a look at the people and
organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests otherwise - no matter how
many celebrity signatures they might collect.
Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the Feb. 24
issue
OMG - the sign. sm
I had to watch it twice to cath that.
not sam...why don't you sign yours? Different name every day...
.
OMG...and I had to sign for my DD
But she could get an abortion without my consent or knowledge...now that's sick! OOO BOY if Obama gets elected...people, we are going to hel* in a handbasket...at lightening speed!!! Hang on.....
Where do I sign up?
She's a heckuvalot smarter than Palin.
Plus I think it will make a good new swear word: Gourd Paint It!!! Of course we won't want to use Her name in vain, so we will have to change that to Go' Pain' It!
I think I qualify as an apostle, whaddaya think, GP?
Sign me up!
It wouldn't be pleasant, but it sure beats the stuff on Fear Factor or Survivor. I could really use the 50 grand.....
so every single pub voted for it and no pub
I've answered several of your questions. Now try 2 of mine. Did every single pub vote to pass it and did no pub receive any type of benefit from this situation?
Yes, and EVERY SINGLE THING he did to TRY to
nm
Not a single Nay vote. He's gone and
Then they're going to vote on whether he can ever hold office in the state again.
Oh, My. I just read every single
comment on the site. I haven't seen hardly any good comments for this program. So.....
This one I copied because I thought it was very insightful:
"I’m a 25 year mortgage veteran. I just got off a 2 hour call with Fannie, Freddie and Treasury.
Trust me when I tell you that this is a complete non-starter.
The modification criteria are VOLUNTARY. There is very little in it for the banks - so they are NOT going to offer these mods. Just trust me on that.
The banks don’t have enough capital to incur the losses these modifications would require.
And the refinance component is a similar waste. If you can refinance today - then you will get ZERO benefit via this program.
At the margin, some folks who find themselves upside down (but are still current on their loan) will be able to refinance - but this is far from a pancea."
Why do you single out Muslims?
I quote from your post:
'If you go back in history, the Muslim religion has ALWAYS been a religion of violence and this has been going on since the Crusades and before.'
Who slaughtered whom during the Crusades?
Who slaughtered the Palestinians in Gaza in the year of 2008?
And there are hundreds of other examples.
It All Comes Down to ONE SINGLE THING
YOU LOST.
AMERICA WON.
STOP YER WHININ'!!!!!
Why don't they just get a big neon sign
to flash 9/11, 9/11...could it be any more transparent? It's their excuse for everything...national security...blah, blah, blah.... it's for your own good; trust us. Yeah, right, like WMD, or was it getting rid of Saddam; I mean, no, spreading democracy...or, uh, was it the global **war on terror**...or fighting the *tehrists/killers* there so we don't have to fight them here, uh, like in Miami...or was it Chicago? Good plan. At this point it's the *gubmint* that's the scariest.
I especially liked the sign behind the singers...
9-11 was an inside job. Gimme a break. Saw signs about racism, of course the 60's standard peace sign...protestors cannot even get together with a common theme. Yeah, I would be real proud of that song representing my political views. Yeah, I would put a lot of stock in that. I will say to them what I said to Lurker and to anyone else in the *peace* movement...stop preaching to the choir. Conservatives don't want war, but we also don't want to be murdered by the thousands. Take your signs and your songs and go to Iraq and talk to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Go to Iran and talk to Ahmadinejad about our right to exist and the right of Israel to exist. Go to Gaza and ask Fatah and Hamas to give peace a chance. Look up bin Laden and ask HIM to give peace a chance. THEY are the enemy...put your money where your mouth is. Don't stay here all safe and warm (which, by the way, men and women have died in many wars to give you that safety and warmth) in D.C. and yap at Americans, go yap at the real enemies of peace. Oh, but that would mean a real commitment to what you believe in and actually dangerous, and not a fun-filled bus ride to DC singing ridiculous protest songs in an effort to feel *relevant* again, like in the 60's? This is all so transparent. These people could not care less about the troops. They are just happy there is another war to protest so they could all get on the bus to D.C. Pitiful. Absolutely PITIFUL. Tell you what...all you peace movement folks go to the enemy and get THEM to agree not to attack America again and you would be surprised how fast Conservatives would be smiling and waving at you on the street corners again. The same old protestors I see every Saturday in front of the post will be there every Saturday where there is a war or not. They were there before Iraq and they will be there after Iraq. Because their entire life is standing for an hour with a sheet over their heads holding a protest sign. Fitting though...their heads are certainly buried. And by the way...you are welcome for the sacrifice made by the military through many battles so you can stand for an hour with a sheet over your head. I say you're welcome in all facetiousness, I realize and most of the military realizes they will all be dead and gone waiting for that thank you.
Have a nice day now.
Hey, pinhead, here's your sign.
"I VOTE FOR OBAMA. I IS SMART. I IS UH ATHIEST. I WATCH THE VIEW. I IS UH PO'FOKE."
I think I'd rather be called a rich, racist, religious freak than an arrogant pinhead like you.
Is This Sign Hateful?
SEE BOTTOM OF MESSAGE FOR SIGN PIC FIRST.
======================================
CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.
An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch. "I thought it would be safe," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN earlier Friday. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to." The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says in part. The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said. The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."
"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."
Gaylor said that police are checking security cameras pointed at the building's entrances and exits to see if they can see anyone stealing the sign.
"It's probably about 50 pounds, " Gaylor said. "My brother-in-law was huffing and puffing carrying it up the stairs. It's definitely not something you can stick under your arm or conceal."
The Washington State Patrol, which is handling the incident, could not be reached for comment.
Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher and co-founder of the group, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.
Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)
"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to he**ll if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."
He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.
"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."
The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.
In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.
"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."
That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.
Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.
Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.
"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."
The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.
But the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.
"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.
"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."
As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.
"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."
The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.
The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.
"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."
For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."
The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.
"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."
Why do you sign yourself "sm"??? If you want to ....sm
You really should have the guts to sign a moniker and not just shoot out comments with "sm" or "nm."
I always did love that sign you got. Can I have one please? nm
He also said he wouldn't sign a
bill with pork in it either but we see how well that went down. Obama does nothing to hide his lies. The media and kool-aid drinkers do it for him so he blatantly lies for all to see and yet his robots still refuse to see it.
Our country is in serious trouble and all Obama cares about is spending spending spending for his own personal agenda. Just another politican looking out for his own personal interests without giving a second thought to the Americans who are suffering.
STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!
Filing single, no dependents?
*
All getting so depression. I doubt there is a single
nm
To same OP: Show me one single thing that is not
For starters, I am not the original poster you think you silenced with your question. I would be happy to step up and point a few things that would lead many people to the conclusion that at least the message in your post is racist, and to the more general conclusion that people who post racist messages are very likely, well....racist.
It is difficult for some to distinguish the difference between prejudice, bigotry and racism. There is a reason for that. They are all forms of intolerance that vary only in degree and basis. Consider for a moment the definitions as they apply to the context of this post:
Prejudice: a: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
Bigotry: The state of mind, action or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination
Now, to begin with, there is not a shred of truth to one single thing you have said here. That would qualify you as prejudiced on the basis of "without just ground, before sufficient knowledge." The conclusions you have drawn from your unfounded accusations would also suggest irrationality directed against an individual and the supposed characteristics, in this case, religion.
Obstinate, intolerant and devoted to you own opinions and prejudices, exhibiting hatred and intolerance, yesiree, we can check that off and confidently pronounce you bigoted as well.
Racist...your assumption that ACORN is a "racist organization." Unfounded, untrue and without proof. I challenge you now to show us one thing in your post that is not prejudiced, bigoted and racist, keeping in mind that you have no leg to stand on whatsoever until you can PROVE your accusations. Ball's in your court, dear.
He tells us who he is every single day. And it isn't pretty.
Your mother really was right, wasn't she? She always taught you to judge character by what people do and not what they say. BO exemplifies Mom's wisdom.
I believe in a single payer system.
It's not being "rushed." It's not even on the table. If you like your insurance, you should have a right to keep it. Others of us would like the option of a single-payer program.
HR676 has been in Congress collecting dust for a very long time now. It's not being rushed. It's being ignored.
Single payer = bad idea.
I just don't trust the government to take care of my health needs. I don't want them controlling any aspect of it, including what procedures need to be done and whether it's cost-effective (meaning will I live long enough to recoup the cost) to have the procedure done.
I agree something needs to be done about insurance and health care and I speak as one of the millions without health care (my husband and I are both self-employed, but cannot afford full coverage). Single payer (meaning the government pays) is just not the answer - look at how they've screwed up everything else!
I will gladly sign this petition.
But am I the only one who finds it disgraceful that Americans are reduced to BEGGING this president, via a petition, to PLEASE do SOMETHING to help keep Americans safe? Every other word out of his mouth has to do with the "war on terror" (or whatever his phrase de jour currently is). Yet, after four years, he STILL couldn't care less if our borders are secure.
This is not a new issue. This is what some of us on these boards have been saying for a long time now. After 9/11, experts in terrorism said we MUST secure our borders. Instead, Bush chose to spend billions of dollars on his war against Iraq and throwing Americans to the wolves.
As I said, I will gladly sign this petition, not believing for a nanosecond that it will do any good because this president simply doesn't CARE. And all that does is give me one more reason to loathe and despise him, and it increases the personal terror I feel daily at the fact that our safety lies in his thoroughly incompetent, ignorant, uncaring hands.
Hurricane Katrina: A sign from God.
God is telling us that Bush is an idiot who destroys everything in (and out of) his path, and it's time for Americans to wake up.
Last-worditis is a sure sign of no meaningful
Is not voting a sign of your maturity?
I am 57 years old, and I agree completely with the post regarding Elvis leaving the building. What is truly childish is a person who is 60+ years old not voting in one of the most important elections of his/her lifetime. Maybe you are the one who needs to grow up and vote.
How can they sign somehing they do not understand?....sm
Buying a house is always risky, but signing something one does not understand is definitely wrong.
Well SIGN ME UP cuz my ship is SINKING!!!!
Ya'll complaining about welfare when it only compromises about 12% of your tax dollars being spent - when, I bet dollars to donuts - ya'll get the "earned income credit" which is a kickback on tax returns which amounts to more than you paid.....WELFARE! Don't cry to me about supporting other people............witless greed all the way down to the bottom of the barrel.
Don't sign on the dotted line......
My daughter blew three discs in her back when she was 18 years old working in a nursing home. She is now 27 and WC has done nothing. They deny treatment recommended by docs - docs get sick of WC dicking them around and no longer will take WC patients. WC sent her a check here and there years ago, her attorney wants her to settle but I told her not to because then she has no coverage for her severe back problems. WC is nothing more than a huge ripoff but, I would never close my claim. At least then, she is eligible to see a doc (if she can find one who takes WC cases) and get assessments, medication, etc.
|
