So there has to be a discussion of posts for it to be relevant?
Posted By: what an stupid comment....grow up. on 2008-12-15
In Reply to: Haven't you noticed? - sm
what a stupid, anonymous comment
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
Who are you and do you have anything relevant to add to the posts?
If not, I suggest you HaHaHa yourself somewhere else.
How is this relevant? sm
So everyone knows he is an alcoholic. Yes, he is. And what is your point? I swear I don't know. Ted Kennedy is an alcoholic. So what?
How is this relevant?...nm
nm
I believe it is relevant....I don't want someone with zero...
integrity in the white house either. John McCain's temper or the lack thereof has never resulted in bad decisions. It is ridiculous to assume because he got angry and said the F word disqualifies him. YOu might as well disqualify the entire Armed Forces.
He is not as dangerous as Barack Obama who knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy...who wants to sit down and chat with terrorist nations...and would be crippled without Joe Biden.
No thanks.
That's not even relevant...(nm)
x
I hardly think it's relevant to ...(sm)
go back 60 years in history. Times were different then, the mind set was different, so it is not possible to have any kind of logical comparrison. However, if he were still around now doing that, then yes, he would be a war criminal.
The amazing thing is that you guys sound just like the extreme jihadists to me. All you want to do is destroy others and spread your religion. And for what reasons? Fear and revenge. You like to talk about being religious, just like the jihadists, but when it comes to something like revenge or torture, you put that religion aside --that same religion you would have everyone else believe is your life -- and you take your revenge and put it in a box with a bright pink bow to sell it. That is what I call a blight on humanity.
Why I am relevant...very simple!
This is the liberal board and I am a liberal. You are not. You and your playmates enjoy degrading the liberal posters on this board. It gets really tiresome. You and your bully friends need to find a different group to pick on, as it obviously brings you very much perverted pleasure as you CANNOT seem to stop and you REFUSE to quit bashing the posters on this board even when asked to by the moderator multiple times.
the reason that I think it is relevant--
and I am sure that you will attack me for this--is that I seem to hear a lot of people saying that Obama is going to do this and that for them (money issues, etc.). So, I am afraid that if everyone puts their faith in him, our freedoms are going to slip away. More gun control, more government power over our money and our health care, etc. Eventually, we will become vulnerable. If you disagree, that is fine. It was just food for thought.
what is for you a relevant source?...nm
nm
The most relevant portion of the article was cut out. This is the
Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America.
Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger, as is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of British Petroleum. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss engineering company ABB. Former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary and former World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member. The group's current chairman is Etienne Davignon, the Belgian businessman and politician.
[edit] Mainstream Criticism
Critics claim the Bilderberg Group promotes the careers of politicians whose views are representative of the interests of multinational corporations, at the expense of democracy.[8] Journalists who have been invited to attend the Bilderberg Conference as observers have discounted these claims, calling the conference "not much different from a seminar or a conference organized by an upscale NGO"[9] with "nothing different except for the influence of the participants."[10]
[edit] Conspiracy Theories
The group's secrecy and its connections to power elites encourages speculation and mistrust by such groups or individuals who believe that the group is part of a conspiracy to create a New World Order. This is further encouraged by the frequent use of the term 'New World Order' by its members when referring to their ultimate goal of world integration. The group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots by groups such as the John Birch Society.[11] This thinking has progressively found acceptance within both elements of the populist movement and fringe politics. [12] According to investigative journalist Chip Berlet, the prominent origins of Bilderberger conspiracy theories can be traced to activist Phyllis Schlafly. [13]
Radio host Alex Jones claims the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union. This accusation is also linked with theories asking for a merger of Canada with United States, hoping Canadian influence will be calming to American society and foreign policy.
From "The Hunt for Red Menace:" "The views on intractable godless communism expressed by [Fred] Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly's A Choice, Not an Echo which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest. Schlafly's husband Fred had been a lecturer at Schwartz's local Christian anti-communism Crusade conferences." [14]
Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states "In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg."[15]
Denis Healey, a Bilderberg founder and former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, decries such theories. He was quoted by BBC News as saying "There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion."[15]
Some popular media references to the group are in Fredrick Forsyth's novel "The Icon" where the group decides to undermine a nationalist Russian leader loosely modeled on Vladimir Putin (among others).In the movie Nixon by director Oliver Stone, Nixon, played by Anthony Hopkins blames "the cabal" for his defeat, Vietnam war and other things, as the edited portion of the Nixon tapes.
Bilderberg has been accused of having kingmaker power as prominent politicians are seen to attend the group before being elected while their political rivals do not attend. [16]
[edit] Meetings
1954 (May 29-31) at the Hotel DE Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands
1955 (March 18-20) at the Hotellerie Du Bas-Breau in Barbizon, France
1955 (September 23-25) at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany
1956 (May 11-13) at the Hotel Store Kro in Fredensborg, Denmark
1957 (February 15-17) at the King and Prince Hotel in St. Simons Island, Georgia, USA
1957 (October 4-6) at the Grand Hotel Palazzo della Fonte in Fiuggi, Italy
1958 (September 13-15) at the The Palace Hotel in Buxton, United Kingdom
1959 (September 18-20) at the Çinar Hotel in Yeþilköy, Istanbul, Turkey
1960 (May 28-29) at the Palace Hotel in Bürgenstock, Nidwalden, Switzerland
1961 (April 21-23) at the Manoir St. Castin in Lac-Beauport, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
1962 (May 18-20) at the Grand Hotel Saltsjöbaden in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden
1963 (May 29-31) in Cannes, France
1964 (March 20-22) in Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
1965 (April 2-4) at the Villa d'Este in Cernobbio, Italy
1966 (March 25-27) at the Nassauer Hof Hotel Wiesbaden in Wiesbaden, West Germany
1967 (March 31-April 2) in Cambridge, United Kingdom
1968 (April 26-28) in Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Canada
1969 (May 9-11) at the Hotel Marienlyst in Helsingør, Denmark
1970 (April 17-19) at the Grand Hotel Quellenhof in Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
1971 (April 23-25) at the Woodstock Inn in Woodstock, Vermont, USA
1972 (April 21-23) at the LA Reserve di Knokke-Heist in Knokke, Belgium
1973 (May 11-13) at the Grand Hotel Saltsjöbaden in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden
1974 (April 19-21) at the Hotel Mont d'Arbois in Megeve, France
1975 (April 22-24) at the Golden Dolphin Hotel in Çeþme, Ýzmir, Turkey
1976 no conference. The 1976 Bilderberg conference was planned for April at The Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia, USA. Due to the ongoing Lockheed scandal involving Prince Bernhard at the time, it had to be cancelled.
1977 (April 22-24) at the Paramount Imperial Hotel in Torquay, United Kingdom
1978 (April 21-23) at the Chauncey Conference Center in Princeton, New Jersey, United States
1979 (April 27-29) at the Grand Hotel Sauerhof in Baden bei Wien, Austria
1980 (April 18-20) at the Dorint Sofitel Quellenhof Aachen in Aachen, West Germany
1981 (May 15-17) at the Palace Hotel in Bürgenstock, Nidwalden, Switzerland
1982 (May 14-16) at the Rica Park Hotel Sandefjord in Sandefjord, Norway
1983 (May 13-15) at the Château Montebello in Montebello, Quebec, Canada[17]
1984 (May 11-13) at the Grand Hotel Saltsjöbaden in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden
1985 (May 10-12) at the Doral Arrowwood Hotel in Rye Brook, New York, United States
1986 (April 25-27) at the Gleneagles Hotel in Gleneagles, Auchterarder, United Kingdom
1987 (April 24-26) at the Villa d'Este in Cernobbio, Italy
1988 (June 3-5) at the Interalpen-Hotel Tyrol in Telfs-Buchen, Austria
1989 (May 12-14) at the Gran Hotel de La Toja in Isla de La Toja, Spain
1990 (May 11-13) at the Harrison Conference Center in Glen Cove, New York, United States
1991 (June 6-9) at the Steigenberger Badischer Hof Hotel, Schlosshotel Bühlerhöhe in Bühl (Baden) in Baden-Baden, Germany
1992 (May 21-24) at the Royal Club Evian Hotel, Ermitage Hotel in Évian-les-Bains, France
1993 (April 22-25) at the Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece
1994 (June 2-5) at the Kalastajatorppa Hotel in Helsinki, Finland
1995 (June 8-11) at the Palace Hotel in Bürgenstock, Nidwalden, Switzerland
1996 (May 30-June 2) at the CIBC Leadership Centre aka The Kingbridge Centre in King City, Canada
1997 (June 12-15) at the Pine Isle resort in Lake Lanier, Georgia, United States
1998 (May 14-17) at the Turnberry Hotel in Turnberry, United Kingdom
1999 (June 3-6) at the Caesar Park Hotel Penha Longa in Sintra, Portugal
2000 (June 1-4) at the Chateau Du Lac Hotel in Genval, Brussels, Belgium
2001 (May 24-27) at the Hotel Stenungsbaden in Stenungsund, Sweden
2002 (May 30-June 2) at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia, United States
2003 (May 15-18) at the Trianon Palace Hotel in Versailles, France
2004 (June 3-6) at the Grand Hotel des Iles Borromees in Stresa, Italy
2005 (May 5-8) at the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Germany[18]
2006 (June 8-11) at the Brookstreet Hotel in Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada[19] See picture of meeting location at time of meeting.
2007 (May 31 - June 3) at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel,[2] in Þiþli, Istanbul, Turkey.[20]
2008 (June 5-8) at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia, United States[3]
[4]
[edit] See also
Trilateral Commission
Would these amendments be relevant for states that - for example - sm
have passed laws allowing medical marijuana use, but the Federal laws are still being used to prosecute patients?
What you say is true, but if relevant evidence is denied sm
or falsified, an objective approach is impossible. This is what the family members faced. They had to force Bush to form that commission to investigate. Coulter is now attacking them for that. They had a list of 400 questions, and got no answers. I agree with you on the wacky theories. I became interested in doing some research on the issue after hearing things around the area I live - Colorado Springs. This is the neocon capital of the United States, and home to Norad and Space Command, Ft. Carson, USAFA, Peterson AFB, Falcon AFB. They live and breathe Bush & military. At first, I thought they were only rumors. Norman Mineta's testimony to the 911 Commission confirmed them to be true. The second question I had was about WTC building 7. This building only had small fires and was not hit by an airplane. It came straight down like the other 2 into a nice neat pile. The owner of the building Silverstein said they made a decision to pull it. This is a demolition term for demolishing the building. Well, this is something that takes careful planning weeks in advance, not several hours. I am also hearing bizarre stories from troops returning from Irag and their family members. Mineta's testimony was shown on C-Span and here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=mineta
I never saw the movie The Siege. Not a Bruce Willis fan. Anything with Matt McConaughey in it, I have seen.
Posts were removed due to the nastiness. Play nice and posts won't get deleted.
I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.
If that is all you got out of this discussion, please, do bow out.
As I see from your other posts you just tend to step in and make random irrational comments, I'm sorry I even replied to your post.
What exactly is illogical, and where was the discussion?
There certainly *is* a feral element on the right that will attack anyone viciously if it serves their purposes - nothing is sacred to them - and they don't respect "logic" any more than they respect the mothers of deceased soliders. I've spent years talking to these people. It took me a long time to reluctantly come to the conclusion that you can't reason with them because they don't respect reason. You can't find common ground because they don't want to share any ground - they want it all. You can't speak to them in a sincere way because they will take that as a sign of weakness and attack you all the harder. You can't deal with them fairly and expect to be treated fairly in return - they will lie at the drop of a hat. Their intention is not to be tolerant of others but to crush any dissent and run smear campaigns against those who are not "like" them. Now that's just my experience with this specific element on the right. It's just my opinion but it's far from illogical to draw conclusions from many years of personal experience. If you are a progressive, may you have better luck than I in trying to find a human face amongst that particular element I'm referring to. If you are a Republican and you actually want to discuss something, it seems like there are plenty of people here including me who would be willing to discuss an issue without getting personal. But no matter who you are, don't expect me or anyone else who's had my experience with the ugly among the right to parse their words or try to be falsely sweet and forgiving toward a specific group of people who are just flat downright dangerous and despicable, and don't deserve to be kid-gloved.
I really enjoyed the discussion, as well.
It was nice to have a peaceful discussion with differing viewpoints. Peace to you, too.
Could you please take your discussion to your own board
PLEASE.
This is the liberal board, or at least that what it says. I don't understand why you guys have taken it over.
This discussion is about where Bush was and was not.
Ignored the most devastating natural disaster in recent US history.
new topic for discussion
McCain's cross in the dirt story he tells now -- history of:
how similar the McCain story is to that offered by Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsen and then later popularized by Christian leaders Chuck Colson and Billy Graham. Sullivan also points out other suspicious changes:
The story changed from the guard using a sandal to the guard using a stick.
At Saddleback, McCain talked about a single guard being the protagonist. The same guard loosened his ropes and then later sketchd the cross in the dirt. In McCain's 1999 book, these were two different guards at two different prison camps.
McCain's first writings about his time in captivity didn't mention the story at all, so he's asked his readers for evidence of McCain offering that story prior to his 1999 book (when he was gearing up for a presidential run).
Several contributors to the comment thread on my first post have pointed to this rather stunning New York Times piece from 2000 in which McCain tells the story but about someone else!
Many years ago a scared American prisoner of war in Vietnam was tied in torture ropes by his tormentors and left alone in an empty room to suffer through the night. Later in the evening a guard he had never spoken to entered the room and silently loosened the ropes to relieve his suffering. Just before morning, that same guard came back and re-tightened the ropes before his less humanitarian comrades returned. He never said a word to the grateful prisoner, but some months later, on a Christmas morning, as the prisoner stood alone in the prison courtyard, the same good Samaritan walked up to him and stood next to him for a few moments. Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt. Both prisoner and guard both stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away.
I think they had a family discussion ...
and they decided as a family to go forward. And this would not be an issue had there are those judgmental among us who decided to make it one. In this day and time for the Dems here, of ALL People, to act all holier-than-thou and act like being pregnant not married still carries some kind of stigma just stinks to high heaven. These same people who have told us to go back to our churches and not push our morality on them. The hypocrisy is staggering. The very people they called judgmental are the ones surrounding this family to support them, not ostracizing them like they had announced their daughter was a pedophile or a serial killer.
I would put the judgment here much MORE in question than Sarah Palin's, and I think a lot of people out there in America whose lives this very thing has touched will do the same.
And I would say that regardless of what party affiliation she has too. If that was a Democrat running for VP and people wre bashing her in this way I would be yelling foul just as loud.
It just amazes me the depths some will sink to for political purposes. INcluding fileting a 17-year-old. Just because her mother made the announcement did not mean poeple were obligated to attack..that was a choice and it taking that choice says a lot about character...or the screaming lack thereof.
we are having a mature discussion
about politics and religion, please do not start posting useless dribble. Thank you.
a "mature" discussion about
seeing black men run through the house, black arms coming out from under the bed, and several people talking to Jesus in the flesh? Okay then. I will bow out.
Don't read too much into this discussion. It just happens...sm
to be the news of the day. I do find it amusing though that her clothes came from the stores that they did. NM has $3000 handbags, etc, very HIGH prices and she probably only got a few outfits for the RNC's $150,000. I am sure that she didn't choose to get her wardrobe from these stores. She was probably staying in a hotel and the repub bigwigs called the department stores and told them what to bring over and what size, charge it to us. They were molding her to what they wanted her to be in order to get votes. It backfired. I actually feel sorry for her now. I hope she gets to keep her new clothes. She will probably be glad to get back to Alaska and out of the lower 48.
No, actually I'm not begging for discussion..
I am simply pointing out diversity. I've seen numerous posts on here from christians, and I really don't feel a need to debate their religion every time I see it. In fact, I respect other's opinions and beliefs, especially when they are willing to express them.....something you should try.
haven't been following this discussion at all BUT
isn't that calling the kettle black? I only clicked on this message cause it was the latest posted one... and after reading it i go... um excuse me... did you EVER given the current administration a break? for ANYTHING? And i dont want to hear they did this and this and this and this. that's fine, people were against them from the beginning too. This happens on BOTH sides, why doesn't everyone agree that there are hypocrites on each side!!! that is hypocritical in itself when you ALWAYS point fingers at the other side! Differing opinions is one thing, but to say that the RIGHT cant give this government a break? Well that's because they OPPOSE what it is they stand for! just like the left opposes what the right stands for!!!!
You call that discussion?
By definition, a discussion is give and take. An informed opinion on a complex issue takes more than a snarky one-liner on a subject line. It's really easy to define an opinion with which you disagree as "endless babble."
Besides, message boards are lousy places to have a true discussion about anything.
Here's a topic for discussion
Leaving criminal penalties out of the equation: Is it immoral to break the law?
What if you consider the law immoral (such as, for example, segregation)? What if you consider integration immoral? How much does individual conscience have to do with this? Easy to say someone else's conscience is in error, but they are saying the same about yours.
Some people try to short their taxes because the money goes to fund a war they do not believe in (there's usually one going on) or to fund abortions, or medical research they abhor, and now to bail out failed businesses and individual mortgages. I think everyone could find something that's funded by our tax money objectionable. How much are we morally required to render unto Caesar?
It's illegal to overstay a parking meter. Is it also immoral if you did it intentionally, simply because you've violated a law? How about sliding through a red light at 3 a.m. on a deserted country road when you could not possibly injure anyone?
If it's legal to raise rent past a tenant's ability to pay, is it also moral? What if this makes them homeless?
I thought the discussion was
for employees to have their health benefits taxed as income.
As noted in a discussion below about this...(sm)
I don't care what his views are or what he is. What I do care about his what he teaches kids. Sending them to his conservative website for homework in my opinion is way out of line.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the language used by the poster above, which is what I was talking about before you tried to change the subject, as usual.
Why is this discussion over - Ive been away for awhile and,
So why is this topic now closed?
So much for logical discussion between right and left.
/
I see. I saw in a discussion about Bruce on Netscape.nm
z
Bashing and discussion are two different things. sm
Evidently the moderator agrees, as she hasn't paid a visit to the boards.
Question regarding the abortion discussion below??
This question is mainly for anti abortion advocates. What would you do in a situation where you were found to be pregnant, but it was found to be an ectopic pregnancy? Would you terminate the pregnancy, or carry it to conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be? Thanks for any replies.
Discussion from Gab Board re Pres.
"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."
Moving over here per Mod request.......
Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush. I was just saying that the names are uncalled for. Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.? Just curious.
President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree. I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views. I do plan on voting for John McCain in November. But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess.
I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country. I would not want the job in a million years. I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility.
I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.
This discussion kind of reminds me of the ...sm
election of 1960, Nixon/Kennedy. Everyone was saying Nixon is a God. He has the most experience. No way John Kennedy is qualified to be president. Then came the first debate, and the rest is history. No teleprompter needed for either JFK or Obama. Their vision for America was/is enough to light the world.
yeah, so what, you aren't following the whole discussion
nm
Not trying to start a religious discussion here, but
being on its knees is exactly what this country needs.
You really don't want to start this discussion, Sparky
x
i thought i'd find some intelligent discussion
here, but what a nasty post. or maybe you are hopelessly superficial. so sorry.
another life-altering issue for discussion
brought to you by the True Believers. distract, distract. blame the clintons.
More on Obama eligibility status from discussion
This argument validates the lawsuit, so it would seem to not be so frivolous. Can't argue about the facts.
************************************
It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between " December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which mea ns though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16 It doesn't matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent.
Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.
Not THE solution, but perhaps one of many? sorry I put an idea out there for discussion, didn't
and sorry if my post ended up with yours, that happens, and I am not here to insult anyone. I do believe in my stance and my idea, have many reasons for it, thought that for once an issue on here could be discussed without personal attacks, if you read my first posts, there is no content other than the proposed idea; I was insulted and attacked for no reason, had the AUDACITY to defend myself and what I am trying to do with my life, my OWN life, and as usual it has turned ugly and it is almost impossible to figure out the original thread....oh well, back to work.
That's funny, a refusal to comment is an end to a discussion as far as I know.
x
Good discussion on PBS' Lehrer News Hour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/bop_9-2.html
Very good discussion of the political ramifications of the current governmental failure in this emergency - includes New York Times columnist David Brooks, a Republican with some rather surprisingly accurate statements.
You must skip all the "rabid" democrat discussion, and obviously don't count...sm
However, rather unfair to use the term "rabid" for any of us, don't you think?
I'd love to hear from the gal that was keeping score yesterday, to see who really rants and rails the most.
Seems to me the dems on this board far out rant the reps, and yet I don't see you calling the dems rabid.
rabid
One entry found.
Main Entry:
ra·bid Listen to the pronunciation of rabid
Pronunciation:
ˈra-bəd also ˈrā-
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin rabidus mad, from rabere
Date:
1594
1 a: extremely violent : furious b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion
2: affected with rabies
That is true....so everyone want to move the discussion to Faith board? nm
x
This is for a serious discussion... Do you think Obama will help the black community to "change
I am watching a story on Nightly News maybe that's what this is... It is about what he will do for the "black community" I guess they call it. They then pointed out the murder rate between in that community, that African-Americans make up 13% of the population but 40% of the incarcerated, etc. etc.
My discussion would be this, do you think it will be a main focus for him to guide or change those young men and women into better things and do you also think that him simply becoming president gives the ones on a bad road reason to make more of their life?
Doesn't your refusing to comment on my question then end the discussion?
It seems there is no topic upon which to stay.
She also posts regularly here. Who are you to say where she posts? nm
//
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
|