Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

is quite amazing.  Exactly how do you know that Obama was not sent by God, or as you would say, that the will of mankind by choosing Obama is not in line with the will of God?  Has, per chance, your god bestowed upon you the gift of seeing into the future? If this is not the case, exactly what do you base your assumptions about the job Obama will do on?  Maybe its because you have bought into the fear doctrine of Bush so much that you can't see beyond it.

You said, *If you believe for one minute that Obama is going to change the way that Iran or any other country in the middle east view America you are very, very naive.  The only thing Obama will accomplish will be to weaken this country in an effort to make us more "likeable" to the world and in the end the only thing we will be is weak*

I would love to hear your definition of *weak.*  From what I can gather from your posts, weak in your eyes is the unwillingness to use force first.  So, what is so wrong with diplomacy?  Is your only response to a situation the *shoot first and ask questions later* mentality?  Believe it or not, there is strength in the ability to negotiate and compromise with others.  Since you base everything on religion, what does your Bible say about that?  Does it not teach compassion and understanding?  Of have you just interpreted it in a manner that suits you personally? 

Do I believe Obama will put an end to offshoring American jobs?  I believe that is his goal, unlike Bush and McCain who both supported tax breaks for companies overseas who do that exact thing.  Look up their voting records.

*How can he make America liked and respected by other countries, and take away a source of income for so many in third world countries?*    It's called FAIR TRADE.  Look it up.  Maybe you didn't pay attention to what Obama was saying during his campaign.  Did you even listen to him, or did you just get the Fox rendition?  I would be willing to bet that those *third world countries* know more about his policies than you do, and yet they overwhelmingly support him.

And then there's the middle east.  Everyone says they don't want Iran to have nukes.  I agree, but I also don't want anyone else to have nukes either.  You would argue that Iran is too radical to be trusted with them.  I would say the same thing about Israel and the US.  Under Bush's reign we have started 2 major wars and are presently funding Israel in its war to the tune of about over 2 billion a year in direct military support.  Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a while.  If you lived in Iran (a democratic state), you saw this behavior, and you know you are labeled as *next* on the Bush hit list, wouldn't you be trying to arm up?

Now I know you're going to say that each and every one of those wars was justified, but you are sooo wrong it's ridiculous.  Israel -- They have been bullying everyone over there for years in the name of the holy land and are currently killing civilians at an alarming rate.  Iraq -- An unjust war, to say the least.  And then there's Afghanistan, which was supposed to be retaliation for 9/11.  Why do you think 9/11 happened?  Do you think before 9/11 that everyone in the world just loved the US?  News flash -- No, they didn't.  The US has been meddling in the middle east for years on end (which included putting people like Saddam in power).  So, you think that the Bush administration had no way of seeing it coming.  Maybe you missed this interview.  It's very enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5TkWGsmZF0

And yet, you would say that Bush has *kept us safe.*  What a joke!

Amazingly, you call me naive when I am the one looking at the facts, and all you have are innuendos, rumors and guesses about what may happen.  Unfounded fears about the future do nothing for the progression of society.  The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will be able to see the truth.

Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him. 

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

I heard her on Sean Hannity's radio show a few days ago. 

Another real dandy is that Killer the Baby Killer in Kansas.

This so-called pro-choice types are the same ones who tore into Joe Horn for killing an illegal thug who was threatening private property.  Diane Sawyer is only one of these utopian elites.

Funny how the twisted logic of the left works.

I'm serious.  WHO?  I honestly don't know because I don't listen to them, either.  But if they have aired similar threats upon a group of people, then I believe they are equally wrong.

If you are offended by my liberal beliefs being posted on the LIBERAL BOARD, then perhaps you would feel more comfortable on the Conservative Board.  Just a thought.

You mean to tell me, gourdpainter, that you don't celebrate this country's great  cultural differences and rights for every American born citizen?  I'm shocked!!!! 

Seriously, yes, I do see this as a problem, but doing away with the 14th Amendment is not the way to keep this from happeniing.  I'm not sure what the correct procedure for handling this would be or even if it could be done as anchor babies are automatically citizens, but I would think writing your congressmen would be the place to start.  This is one of the tragedies this country might face because of weak borders and law enforcement's seeming inabiilty to send illegals back where they came from.  It goes deeper than that, though. 

You know, you mentioned in another post that no Native American has ever run for POTUS.  Actually, they probably have more right than Caucasian American citizens to hold this office as they were here first. 

In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller’s dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. An effort in 1997 failed in the face of intense political opposition from immigrant rights groups. Apparently, the question remains open to the determination of the political and legal processes.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm