This is an opinion piece from a graduate of
Posted By: multiple conservative think tanks. sm on 2009-02-09
In Reply to: Just another freedom chiseled away....sm - ms
Will not be accepting this as gospel without further resarch and investigation. My gut's telling me somebody somewhere is trying to serve a partisan agenda. Pardon me while I go check a few facts, read the bill for myself and get a few more viewpoints before buying into this hook, line and sinker.
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
Read it again. It is an opinion piece...
written by a black minister. He is entitled to his opinion and I don't believe has been called a discredited liar. This has nothing to do with the McCain camp. You might want to actually read a post before the drive-by "They're all liars" campaign strategy.
And y'now, Obama is not in ANY position to call anyone else a liar. He lied about his vote on giving medical care to babies who survive abortion. He voted against it. He actually voted that the child should be left to die. He then said if a bill had come to the floor that was worded like the federal bill he would have voted for it. Such a bill DID go to the floor of the Illinois state senate and he voted against it. It is a matter of public record. He voted against the bill to save babies who survived abortion TWICE...basically said deny them care and let them die. He is so invested in abortion rights that he would not vote for common human decency in case it might affect abortion rights. That is sick, sick, SICK. Basically his campaign has owned up to the fact that he was untruthful. So I would not be posting calling the other side liars...
Do you have anything but an opinion piece to substantiate this?
?
a bold, fresh piece of opinion
Karl Rove - too smart by half. He came up with the brillant idea to aid the corporate republicans by manipulating the low-information voters who live their lives by unexamined slogans, prejudices, and fear-based principles. This worked for a while -- as shown by not only the election but the REelection of George W. However, he did not anticipate that this large, unruly group would actually take over the republican party and elevate the unexceptional -- i.e, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber, to hero status. Their thinking being, "I are smart enough to run this here country, so why not Sara Palin - she are one like me!" Just imagine -- I savor this image - the faces of the corporate repubs - Mitten Romney, Rudy-the-911, George HR, etc., when they realized that the group they wished to control to do their bidding against their very own self interests had coopted the party!! I love it.
Did you graduate kindergarten this year?
Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell University...
and you are a graduate of what?
they had to join a community service organization to graduate?
x
Certified graduate of the *How to Insult like a kindergartener* school of insults. SM
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
Why settle for a Harvard graduate who sees a vision of a kinder world.
I didn't believe him initially. I felt he had a hidden agenda, pay back time for the wrongs done to his ancestors until I saw his family photos, mom and grandpa as white as mine. This guy was raised as a white boy. And maybe that is why he expects more from the black men (raise your kids).
Give him a chance. Listen to his speeches over the years. Research him.
Though honestly, I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a New York minute.
Your opinion of torture is your opinion. Tough
nm
Seems no one wants a piece of Hillary :)
GOP Challenger to Sen. Clinton Quits Race
By Chris Cillizza Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, December 22, 2005; Page A05
Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro (R) ended her campaign against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday, bringing to a close a brief and decidedly rocky attempt to unseat perhaps the country's most famous Democratic officeholder.
Even as she announced she would shutter her campaign against Clinton, Pirro jumped into the state attorney general's contest. A recent independent poll showed her trailing the two Democrats seeking that office.
In a statement released by her campaign, Pirro said her law enforcement background better qualifies me for a race for New York State Attorney General than a race for the United States Senate.
Pirro's exit leaves the Republicans adrift for now, with only two obscure candidates vying for the nomination: former Yonkers mayor John Spencer and tax lawyer William Brenner.
From the start of Pirro's Senate campaign in mid-August, she was beset by questions about her fundraising ability and readiness for such a high-profile contest.
Pirro is the second Republican to drop a bid against Clinton, who is seeking a second Senate term next November. New York City lawyer Ed Cox, the son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon, left the contest Oct. 16 when New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) announced his support for Pirro.
We know at some point the Republicans will sort out this process and choose a nominee, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said.
Cillizza is a washingtonpost.com staff writer.
Again, it is a piece of jewelry
I just don't get it.
And C. Matthews is one sorry piece of
He is definitely being paid by the DNC and paid well. He is trash.
No need to freak out over BBC piece.
That is was an opinion piece? Also, check out the author. Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to George Bush. The main trust of the article is Iraq and foreign policy. It comes as no suprise that BBC would publish BOTH sides to the election story and especially when it comes to posting opinions that would appeal to a certain segment of their own population. England. Part of the original coalition. They lost soldiers in Iraq just like we did. Also, they have a rather impressive history of imperialial colonialism and I have no doubt that conservative viewpoints such as this have appeal to some of the stodgier among them.
CNN hit piece on Tea Party sm
At nearly 2 minutes into this clip, listen to this woman let CNN toady Susan Roesgen have it. She is brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd2tg8gxCDU&feature=player_embedded
What do you know about me? What an arrogant piece of work you are.
Guess what, we went to school and work our butts off and pay for everything we have. We're not rich either. But I don't hold disdain for those who made it bigger than I. It's a free country.
I posted the Chickenhawk piece.
The author is in the very last line. I got it from his website.
Lovely piece of garbage.
Thanks for the confirmation. Here ladies and gentlemen is a classic example of bureaucratic professional. Where does it show that he has military experience, field experience? In essence by placing this post, you're saying that because he is highly educated (and that doesn't necessarily transpose to the highly intelligent), afforded certain posts in government, that is all that is required to take over and manage a country under insurgency? Hum....
So Armitage's principles weren't good enough for you?
Of course you take things at face value. I don't think you have asked a valid question yet. If you didn't take things at face value, I believe you would have more questions. But it seems that all you have are answers. Another hum....Perhaps, it is just a matter of who's face you're looking at isn't it?
Now, you go and have a nice day!
She's a real piece of work that one
x
NYTimes = liberal hit piece...no thanks
Haha... ain't she a piece of work?
Because the bailout is a corrupt piece of
Most people do not even realize that HALF that money they are stealing from us is going DIRECTLY to foreign investors, i.e., the China
2-step......read up on it. Better yet, I'll send a link... sickens me to no end!!!!!
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=234
Excellent piece and funny too. nm
.
There seems to be a piece of logic that has escaped you.
Hawaii DOES hold the authentic after all? Wouldn't that simply confirm that he was born in Hawaii?
After reading the piece of trash lurking behind your link, my head was spinning as I attempted to count how many times Andy the anti-Obama lunatic Martin referred to "I", "mine", and "my" in his statement. Do you not recognize a megalomaniac in the midst of trying to justify his frivolous lawsuit and vindicate his own delusions of grandeur in his claims being the smartest attorney on the face of the earth?
This is the same guy who is trying to assert that Frank Marshall Davis is the REAL biological father of Obama. You expecting to see that on on the "real, typewritten, long version" of the secret Hawaiian BC? If that were the case, then what was Obama Sr's visit with Obama all about? How about the Kenyan grandmother and brother who fringe pubs falsely claim witnessed his birth in Kenya? So Aunti Zeituni isn't REALLY his Aunti Zeituni after all? She's yesterday's news, now that you have conjured up another, more desperate smear?
Your hate machine is imploding all over itself under the weight of its own lies. If you don't get a grip on yourself, the next legal action down the pipe just may be your own state commitment papers.
That piece didn't look like it was meant as comedy.
If it was, I apologize. I guess I totally missed it. Must be my weak mind.
She's a real piece of work - see message
Being in the military, when we talked to subordinates we called them by their title (SGT Smith, Private Smith, etc). When we talked to our superiors we addressed them as sir or ma'am. Sir and ma'am are signs of respect.
So not only is she arrogant, but she is ignorant too.
The general I believe had several options (replies) here are some:
1. "Excuse me, I didn't really hear you say that, did I?"
2. "Sir and ma'am are titles we use as a sign of respect. If you don't want me to respect you fine, Ms. Boxer".
3. "I am a General in the United States military. You will not tell me what and what not to call you".
4. "This is not why I'm here. You really need to play your power-hungry games on others, but don't waste my time".
5. "Where is your boss. You evidently need to be removed if you believe your title is more important than the reason I am here answering these questions".
6. "Okay, Senator Twottyface".
Or better yet he should have stood up and said to the board members. I will be back to answer your questions when you have someone competent to ask them.
She is just rude and ignorant and her boss should have called her aside and reprimanded her for being so stoopid and making them look like a bunch of idiots. I too have no idea how she keeps getting voted. She needs to be at the top to get fired too.
Ah just that pesky little piece of paper called the Constitution. n/m
He has shown a short-form fraud piece of garbage. I
nm
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
last line of Matthews piece cut off in error. 1 line sm
complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
WHOSE OPINION?
That's your opinion
I don't think the liberal justices have been able to put their own views aside to make constitutionally sound decisions in the last few years, but again, that's my opinion as much as you are basing your judgements on your opinion. I think Bush is a brillant man, and I won't castigate you for thinking he's not, but it is your opinion and you have a right to it. Do I think Harriet Miers is best choice? No, but given her credentials I don't think she's a disaster either. The whole Roe vs. Wade issue has been controversial from it's inception, and yes I do think abortion is wrong, because it's killing innocent human life. I think it should be revisited. Roe has had a change of heart over the years about it, and to me that speaks volumes. However, I doubt you will agree and I don't expect you to.
Okay, if a justice should be excluded because of their abortion views then all the justices would have to be excluded, because they all have taken sides one way or the other.
I second your opinion except
I do believe, based on all information available, that Plame was truly outed. There is no "opinion" involved here. It is either true or false, and in this case, it is true she was outed. Throw as much distraction and verbiage at it as you want, but the fact remains.
What is your opinion...???
You mention abortions in this country that occur. How do you feel about Iraqi women having abortions? Does it bother you as much as abortions in the US? Would you go to Iraq at the present time and implore upon the women there not to have an abortion? "Life, what a terrible thing to waste."
Your opinion, and
Get a grip.
that's your opinion
I think that's a "desperate" attempt by dems because you must be scared of his pick!
I am a woman and a proud woman but i don't vote for one just because of that fact! (take Hillary for example!!)
you can have your opinion - and so can I
You just don't like to hear the truth. Hurts doesn't it!
I think I said in my post I commend you both for being able to stay at home and raise your kids. Good for you.
Your the one cutting down Sarah Palin for no good reason and just spewing lies. So I am giving my opinion.
Goes both ways.
As Austin Powers would say - Yeah, baby!
It is just my opinion ...
once again, just because I don't like his personna does not mean that I am not voting for him.
I truly have not decided.
Just my opinion...sm
This is all pretty much a matter of opinion, why does one have to be stupid to vote for who they FEEL is the best candidate. None of them truly are qualified. We can gave education and we can gain experience, but when given the task at hand, how many actually succeed. I feel that the Bush administration has been the worst ever since I have become involved in politics over the years, but that is my personal opinion. Not only was he given one term and failed, but a second term and things got worse.
I am not pushing any buttons or trying to step on anyones toes. To me it does not matter what race, religion, or gender, have always been a democrat and nothing and no one can ever make me vote republican, but the replican administration that had the task of leading our country for the last 8 years has definitely turned some die hard republicans to say they will vote republican.
This is my thing, I'm poor in a sense that I do not have millions of dollars in the bank, the rising gas prices and food prices affect me tremendously, and I live below my means. The economy has changed, it is not good. I want to survive. I want to know that my job is safe, if I need financial assistance to save my home or feed my kids that it is available. There are more issues that hit home for me, just a few named above. I do not care that the gentleman who started AIG lost 3 billion dollars, so what how many millions do he have left. If I lose $100 that's a sore spot for me. They are saving financial insitutions with buyouts, spending billions on a war, and nothing to help the working Americans who lost their job and lost their homes and they were working hard just to survive.
I'm torn in a sense, but I do feel sorry for our country. How much more will we working Americans have to suffer.
Just my thought, part of the money that is been sent to fund this war, can we have it here in America to give to our people who are suffering from natural disasters (hurricanes, raging fires, jobs moved overseas, and all the other major crises surrounding us). What are we really striving for?
This is my opinion.....
From reading her thesis....she just made it sound like ivy league colleges are directed towards the "Whites" and wondered if it was really beneficial for "Blacks" to attend these colleges in a predominant white setting. Stating that "Blacks" who attended Princeton found themselves grouped together but at the end of their education came to finding their way in the "White" world and forsaking the "Black Community." How some "Blacks" felt guilt because they felt they should help the low-income black community and hadn't and others felt no guilt and strived for a position in the white world like Princeton was to blame for these "Blacks" building a life for themself and their family instead of putting everything back into the black community.
It sounds to me like Michelle Obama is a bitter and arrogant black woman and her involvement and membership at Rev. Wright's church for 20 years is just more proof of that. As many times as Rev. Wright showed up in interviews and spatted hate and the empowerment of blacks against their white oppressors....you cannot tell me honestly that Barrack and Michelle NEVER heard any message like that when it seems like that is all that comes out of Rev. Wright's mouth.
That is your opinion...
Obama doesn't know how many states are in the country he is actually running for President of. Joe Biden can't keep his foot out of his mouth.
Real Clear Politics has McCain ahead in electoral votes, and that is where the election is decided, not the popular vote. They are virtually neck and neck or within margin of error in Pennsylvania and Michigan...which nearly always are double digits for the Democrat at this time in elections. Just a little perspective on polls. That being said, polls are what they are. We will not know until election night.
deRothschild's remark doesn't mean as much to me as the "clinging bitterly to their guns and religion" comment of Obama's about Pennsylvanians...that is why he lost his lead in Pennsylvania and why it may very likely go Republican for the first time in how many years.....?
And that comment tells me all I need to know about the character of Barack Obama and how he feels about the common person out here in the flyover states.
My opinion
I voted for the first time in 1960. The issue then was "Catholic." People were "scared" of a Catholic president.........much like Obama being "Muslim." Not much new since then except for the extensive media and internet. Of course the "Catholic" won. Some still say that election was bought by the Senior Kennedy. I happen to believe that now and I voted for him. At that time I was a young voter, JFK was young, good-looking and talked a good talk.
You say the media picked their "darling." I've watched TV consistently since the beginning of all this mess, starting with the primaries and I have seen no bias on CNN where I usually get my news and watch debates, etc. I did notice that Tom Tancredo (whom I supported) and Ron Paul were NOT given equal time in the debates. Anything I hear that does not come directly from the horse's mouth, I research and make up my own mind, thus I consider myself about as well-informed as anyone can be who doesn't personally know any of the candidates. I continue to be dismayed by posters on this board such as the above poster who says "Obama caught in the act." If this is the kind of ill-informed voters who actually vote and elect our leader, God save us all.
The ACORN thing. If I understand it correctly, the actual voter registration office that "discovered" the fradulent registrations is run by Republicans. So there you have it again...Dem vs. Pubs. They say they "don't have time to sort out the legitimate registrations"...Isn't that their job? Do you REALLY think ACORN is the only one guilty of voter fraud? I most certainly do not. Why do you think both parties steer far away from illegal immigration? Not a word have I heard from either candidate about illegal immigration. Why? Both are in favor of giving the free-loading, criminal invaders of our country "a path to citizenship," because both parties want the Latino vote, legal or otherwise.
To answer your question....I think our next leader will be decided by rabid voters who support the ticket, whichever group has the most rabid voters that actually turn out, and it looks to me like it may be the Republican ticket so it will not surprise me if John McCain is the next president. I personally know many people who say they are not going to vote because they, like myself, cannot support either candidate. I think there will probably be a huge voter turn-out and much of the turn-out will be newly registered voters and those who have bought into the Obama is a scary fellow campaign. Fear is the scary thing, it brings out the fight or flight instinct just as it is designed to do in this election. Seems many people can't see the forrest for the trees.
VOTING WITH A WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!
So, did you have an opinion on
nm
Well if it is just your opinion then you need to say that
If it is not a fact that she uses her religion to gain money and power then you are slandering her without saying "in my opinion".
So you can post something hateful about aggressive women starting trouble and then needing their male counterparts to back them up, but when someone questions you, they are being over aggressive?
Everybody has their own opinion.
.
My opinion is..........sm
that it is hateful in its message that basically ridicules Christianity and I believe it is hateful in the manner in which it was displayed right next to a Nativity scene. If the sign had not ridiculed the Christian faith and had been displayed in another area away from the Nativity, then perhaps it may have remained intact. For example, why not just say something like "Happy Winter Soltics" with the name of the organization at the bottom if they were truly just promoting the winter soltice and giving people information on atheist service organizations? The Nativity scene displays no hate language. It is a statement of the love of our God that Christians celebrate at this time of the year. Like GP, I think the atheists protest way too much over something they don't believe in. I don't believe in the boogie monster, but I don't go around posting signs about it.
That may be, but it is just that..HIS opinion....
and he is pretty much spot on. I listen to him whenever I get a chance...which is not often working during the day. LOL.
Well.......that's YOUR opinion.
*I* am not impressed by anyone who can only badmouth someone else. If McCain has something better to offer, where is it???????? 
Yes, that is my opinion
and we are all entitled to our own opinion. I don't trust someone who is so evasive about his past, and will not answer questions thoroughly
That is your opinion
I don't agree with it. If killing any life is murder, than don't we all need to be vegetarians?
|
