Probably because he never left his original faith
Posted By: uhhhhhh on 2009-04-06
In Reply to: Maybe somebody can explain this... - Perplexed
but only stated he was Christian to acquire more votes.
The people who leave that faith know the consequences and some live in fear the rest of his life.
Never believe he changed to begin with.
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
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
I didn't talk down your faith but your faith
Get over yourself already. He shows the kindness and tolerance of a true Christian and not all the hating and intolerance like you and a lot of people here. Just because you are a Christian doesn't make you any better than anyone else
you mean left wing....it's a left wing ding website on the messiah....the right wouldn't bothe
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking. If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.
I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well. I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards.
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
the original settlers
She said, and I quote "the original settlers"
Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The only mandated CS in his original
platform (Blueprint for Change) was for the Opportunity Tax Credit for college students to receive the $4000 college tuition assistance. It states he has a goal for middle school and high school students to do 50 hours, but it never says it is required. (I printed this out during the primary, so it may be out of date.)
FYI, it's not a forgery. It's the original one
on file at the courthouse. I WELCOME a Supreme Court decision so this nonsense will end, although I'm sure then the tin-foil-hatters will swear the current republican-biased Supreme Court was in on the scam too... LOL.
And yet another one makes the Original
For the original package...(sm)
but unsure if it will help as it stands. The popularity of the against vote for the bill has been fascilitated by some keen advertising on the pub side. I'm hoping Obama will call the pubs out on tonight's address and point out exactly what it is that pubs want in the bill (more tax breaks for the wealthy that we can't afford), and in particular, which pubs want it. If he does that keep your eye on the polls. People will be outraged.
Faith. sm
There was a poster on this board not too long ago of the Jewish faith. He was here to discuss the situation in Israel. He was hounded from this board ruthlessly. And not by conservatives.
Faith
I am not here to discuss Israel, just replying to an abortion post. I really don't care if I am hounded by anyone. Happens all the time :-)
I have faith
and am not ashamed to express it. Seems to me democrates place their hand on the bible just like rebublicans when taking the oath of office. Do you wonder about that too?
I think it does but I do have faith there are
good people out there too like you. So thank you for saying that. I tune in to CNN a lot of it has come up a few times that it matters. It is just depressing to me that it does still matter.
take care.
Keep the faith. No one knows what is going,,,sm
to happen with the economy or in the world over the next few months. At least we have a glimmer of hope with Obama.
Got that right, but keep the faith.
we can get through anything. We will come out in a much better place if we simply get our collective acts together and realize that change is coming (and I DON'T mean the campaign slogan) because it has to. WE have a choice. We can take charge of the situation and face those challenges as a united front or stay sidelined and wait for our leaders to show us the way. Clearly, I know which side of that decision I come down on.
According to your faith...(sm)
Christians were at one point persecuted, and they pushed and pushed until they got their way. I guess it was okay to do that back then.
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
original message regarded
the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media. Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive? you can't have it both ways.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Oldtimer was the original poster
You would have probably gotten that had you not been in such a hurry to jump my post. I have nothing to hide, nothing to get away with and see no real reason to dumb down the phrasology, tone or content of my posts. I respond in kind to to folks who have no real interest in viable political issues, are constantly in attack mode, have pronounced adversions to logic, reason and facts and who haul out the holier-than-thou, pious, elite accusations when trying to avoid any sort of intelligent discourse.
There will always be opposition around who can be as in-your-face as the you choose to be...or not. If I "bother" you somehow, so be it. Right wingers bother me too, but you don't see me going around trying to kick them off the board or telling them they post more than they should.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give respect and get respect. That's the way it works in the grown-up world. It's your choice.
I took the original poster for observing 9/11 ...sm
to be in the same spirit of both Sen. Obama and McCain, and that was to put aside differences, for one day, and be kind to one another, and not make political statements that are inflammatory to one another. To come together and to be one nation, without division, so to speak, on this of all days.
That's all the original poster was asking for.
We are free to choose how we act, as we wish, you are correct in that.
I choose to post today and be kind. I could post about how I feel about certain candidates, but it is not the day for that.
I choose to remember everyone today, you included, I remember that we are one, as we are all Americans, all New Yorkers, on this of all days.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
Maybe you still have your original birth certificate...sm
I sure didn't. When I went to get a passport I had to order a copy from the city where I was born. It was a photocopy. All birth certificate copies come with a seal for authenticity. There are no more "originals filed". Everything is computerized or on microfilm.
and we come back to the original point.
Is it moral to befriend a terrorist?
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
See the original summary enclosed
The law that passed is updating the Brady Law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02640:@@@D&summ2=3&
Are you at all capable of original thought?
used on the forum today at least a dozen times. It has just about as much meaning in this post as it did early this morning....zero. Why don't you confine yourself to speaking on behalf of your own flock, 'cause you sure hs hades don't know what you are talking about when you try to speak for the other 69,456,897 fellow citizens who voted Obama into office.
How about something original...your wonder boy is in deep crap...
and he knows it...just 2 weeks in and already can't remember what he promised. The coming 4 years are going to be great to watch; the Messiah implodes, millions who have been hoodwinked will have their eyes opened and they will STILL blame Bush.
I saw the original of this earlier today. sm
I was so upset I wanted to call CNN and tell them in no uncertain terms that they needed to fire that wench and get somebody who would let the people talk without being interrupted. Personally, if it had been me she was haranging, I would be in jail because I probably would have swung at her.
That woman is worse than Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and others of her ilk. SHe gives the honest, hardworking reporters a bad name.
No wonder the alphabet soup and MSM groups have lost any and all credibility.
I do know what the original SS draft looked like....
A great great uncle of mine was a friend of Roosevelt and was a long-time military man. He finally retired and went back to the midwest when Roosevelt called him and asked him to please come back to Washington to draft a plan for SS.
We are fortunate to have this to see and I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with freeloaders and moochers but was to look out for the older crowd. Yes, they were taking into account the average lifespan of a man and then their windows, so she could have money to help feed their children if he died early. This was in part because of the stock market crash where so many lost their life's savings. It was never never meant to be what it has turned into. Wealthy older Americans were not to have this money JUST because they hit a certain age. If they had money, they were not to draw SS, only those with extreme need.
Unfortunately, over the decades government has turned SS into anything but its intended use.
Have you ever had an original thought in your head?
I mentioned above that a few weeks ago, someone had suggested that JTBB and I get a room, as follows:
What a suckup
Posted By: Get a room on 2009-05-31
In Reply to: Thank you for that, Marmann. s/m - the truth is out there
You've got something on your nose there, Skippy."
Now in today's ONE THREAD, the same "suggestion" was made twice. So that's THREE times in two weeks that this weak "shot" was aimed towards me and/or JTBB. If that old recycled BS is the best thing you can come up with, then you're beyond pitiful.
I don't need to "get a room" with anyone simply because I agree with that person, but it sounds like some of you could benefit greatly by placement in an asylum.
Yes, I am very derogatory about faith. sm
Thank you for noticing. Let me respond.
You wrote:
>>yet I think it takes much more "faith" in a ridiculous theory that a one-cell amoeba crawled out of a mucky ocean somewhere and through "evolution" became man. You can't "prove" that, scientists can't "prove" that, but you believe it...because somebody said and it wrote it down...sound like the Bible? lol. That too is "faith." >>
Well, first of all you're mistaken. Scientists can prove evolution and have. The only people left still trying to deny evolution are doing so because it challenges or threatens their religious beliefs. For the rest of the world it's clear there is overwhelming evidence for biologic evolution and natural selection as the way that life developed and continues to develop (or become extinct...) on Earth. Please, read up on it. Fossils. Dinosaurs. It's facinating.
Note that I'm not talking about the *origin* of life, about how it all get started. Neither science or religion can answer that question. Religion says God made everything but it doesn't answer the question of who or what made God. And evolution doesn't answer the question of how the universe and our planet came to exist in the first place, just how life evolved here on Earth. (Though I think it's entirely possible science will eventually be able to answer this question.)
Second, what you wrote is not a valid arguement because religion and science are not on equal footing. They're two completely different things. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Let me give you a nice long quote from one of my favorite authors, Richard Dawkins (which should come as no surprise to you) because he explains it far more eloquently than I can:
'(Religious) fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. It really is a very different matter. Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In principle, any reader can go and check that evidence. When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn't happen with holy books.'
Now to your next question:
>>And I do not understand why you have to protest against something so strongly that you feel does not exist. Why would you bother? Why does someone having a life-changing experience bother you so much?>>
The part that bothered me was not someone having a life-changing experience. What bothers me is religion. I should think that was clear. What irritated me was the comment made in the post about athiests. It was an opinion presented as fact. That irritated me enough to cause me to respond. (BTW, did you read the whole thread, or just that part? We were talking about the bible.)
You also asked why I would bother to protest about something I don't believe exists. Are you kidding me? Look at the board we're on. It's a political board. I don't believe God exists, but religion sure does and I don't want its influence in our government. I don't have time to list all the reasons I have for protesting, but that's probably the biggest - the fact that I don't want to live in a theocracy. I don't want a president who believes God talks to him and tells him what to do, for example. I want religion to stay out of our goverment, at every level. This country is not only about freedom OF regligion, it's about freedom FROM religion.
I SO agree and we are not of the same faith
I do not think Chronicles is in my bible - I have to go check that....but regardless, I totally agree with you. It says in my bible something like when chyt hits fan, it's gonna happen from the inside out.....this, to me, would be IT. I'm so not voting for him......nothign really against him, per se, but he's saying he's gonna fix every single problem in the USA - well, our economy sux....so where is the money coming from? Rhetorical question bears no answer - because it's going to come from us. Another thing - he does not have the amount of experience (governmental and the rest of it) for me to be comfortable with him as president. he ain't no JFK who came from a HUGE heavy background of experience(s). No offense meant to anyone but personally, I hope he loses - and Michelle said a month ago or two, *we are only going to do this once, and if we don't win, we are not going through this again* - I'm so praying for that to occur. y opinion, please no flames.....to each his/her own about who they want in office. 
I'd prefer someone than anyone who was running for this....but that's not gonna happen, unfortunately!!
We shall see. I never put much faith in blogs...
but, perhaps those who go to Obama will be replaced by those who come to McCain from the other side. Sorry...nothing will dampen this for me today. :)
I person of faith
who pubically ridiculed the Bible in a speech. A man who has sketchy associations. A man who attended a school in Indonesia were his school records list his religion as muslim and yet he denies ever being a muslim. A man who allowed his children to be baptized and attend a church where the pastor preached hate messages. A man who supports partial birth abortions......
Please excuse me while I vomit!
Isn't that what's known as 'blind faith'?
*
Blind faith.....
In a way it is. I have faith that God is there for me. That doesn't mean things are sugar and honey all the time, because they're definitely not.
Jesus ask of to just have the faith of a mustard seed. He is asking us to have no more faith than that of the size of a mustard seed, which is meniscule, and you will be surprised where that will take you. You know, we are asked to ask questions of God, to seek him, and ask Him to prove Himself. What better way for God to show us his love than to ask Him to prove himself?
You might just see great things happen in your life.
Having respect for faith all around?
I do. Faith and religion, two different things. I respect everyone's right to pray. I just don't think it should be made into a political issue like it has been done on this board. If it was truly a prayer request, why wasn't it on the prayer request board and the faith board?
I too do not put much faith in polls.
Did these polls have John Kerry ahead at this time during the last election. They also showed the Nixon was ahead of Kennedy. We will find out when we find out. Just go vote for who you think is best and hope for the best.
Who put faith in what government?
Who put faith in what government? I for one put NO faith in Bush from day one....he was a disastrous governor in the Lone Star, and I knew by the time he got finished with America and Americans, that we would barely be able to recognize it. You are right. The shrub did inherit at least something he should have been able to work with, but evidently it was beneath his pay grade to pay attention to such things since he had wars to wage.
Obama wants to restore a little balance...another thing the shrub monkeyed around with...especially his notorious distain for judicial powers and addiction to executive privilege. We need to take out that generic "government" reference and replace it with republicans failed us. The more power they get, the more they will fail us. Voters get that now.
Why are you lying? Obama wants stricter gun controls. He cannot take your precious guns away from you without a constitutional amendment. Defend yourselves against what? You really are a paranoid bunch, aren't you? Uh, oh....your argument just fell apart. So I ask again, can anybody explain Reagan's rambling incoherence?
Oh ye of little faith. Go to the top of the page.
nm
Right. Why cant he have faith in the people rather
nm
|
