as are lots of Obama supporters...nm

• Something that was shouted out at - SM
  • Right on (nm) - Just me
  • Thank you! That is the problem. Using a brain is - impossible for O's brainwashed sheep.nm
    • Obama supporters are very educated and not hicks nm - Adeline
      • Well there is a condescending elitist statement....lol. - sam
      • Maybe not hicks, but obviously not educated.. - onlyinamerica
        • I take offense at that - - Amanda
          • And all McCain supporters are not unedcuated...... - sam
            • I did not post the original comment - - Amanda
            • Lots of them are nm - Mrs. M
              • as are lots of Obama supporters...nm - cj
      • over generalize much? - cj
      • Whatever Obama supporters are, they are - SHEEP who think of today and not long-term.nm
        • I have voted Democrat, but could never vote for - Obama, friend to radicals and socialist.nm
          • Yeah, moochers love Obama, thinking they will get - a quick buck from the rick -shameful!.nm

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

What do you say we all switch and vote a dirty old maverick into the White House?

Sorry, just felt the urge to be an @$$. 

I don't normally post on this board, I stay over on the MT boards, but I have one thing to say from my heart:  Please remember that you reap what you sow.  All of the years of the Bush-bashing from the left...it was always "okay" to do that because Bush is an "imbecile" or whatever other hateful names he was called.  You didn't agree with his policies, etc.  So let's bash him.  Forget that he is a human being with people who love him.  I believe he did the best he could with what he had to work with in terms of faulty intelligence given to him and the unimaginable stress of being the Leader of the Free World. 

Well, now the tables have turned.  I, personally, do not intend to bash Obama until he does/does not do something I disagree with, but when the time comes that some people might have the gall to disagree with something Obama does and refer to him in a negative way by calling him names or otherwise, please remember how it was *okay* for the left to do it to Bush.  Just remember that.  The time will come when the hateful negativity comes back on you with a vengeance. 

Thanks for listening. 

While you guys are here on this page engaging it "silly season semantics", we Obama supporters are working our plan to ensure that we get this wonderful man of the people in office.  Has Senator McCain given his supporters any ideas on what they can do to try to help put him in office?  Most of the 90,000+ people at the Democratic convention are right now working the plan (not to mention the millions of us who watched from home!)  You guys need to wake up and give your support to someone who will work for you rather than against you in Washington. 

The only thing wrong with being wrong is stubbornly clinging to your wrongness.  You probably voted for our current president 4 and 8 years ago.  The deplorable condition that our nation has fallen into over the course of the last 8 years makes me know I must do everything possible to avoid 4 more.  I, and millions like me, are so happy that Senator Obama chose to use his awesome intelligence, skills and experience of working with people to help us help ourselves.  We are an unstoppable force.  Better get on board, folks. 

and bar owners really do not care about the danger the city could be in because of the legislation passed allowing bars to stay open 24/7 for 4 days.  I would think that safety would be a concern, but you just proved me wrong. 

While I can see the controversy about when life begins when we are talking about the very early stages of development, I have this question for anyone who has ever had a child....or been one.  Generally when a mother is about 20 weeks pregnant, give or take a couple of weeks, she starts to feel the baby moving around inside her body. The baby moves more and more as the weeks go by.  Toward 30 weeks or so, you can actually feel the baby changing positions to get more comfortable, moving around.  So you are saying that baby I felt moving in my body wasn't alive yet? 

By MEG KINNARD | Associated Press Writer
9:04 PM EST, November 13, 2008
 
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) _ A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.

But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers — and voters — should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. In their annual fall meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights.

According to national exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. In South Carolina, which McCain carried, voters in Greenville County — traditionally seen as among the state's most conservative areas — went 61 percent for the Republican, and 37 percent for Obama.

"It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same."

Conservative Catholics criticized Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 for supporting abortion rights, with a few Catholic bishops saying Kerry should refrain from receiving Holy Communion because his views were contrary to church teachings.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. A Boston-based group that supports Catholic Democrats questioned the move, saying it was too extreme.

"Father Newman is off base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."

A man who has attended St. Mary's for 18 years said he welcomed Newman's message and anticipated it would inspire further discussion at the church.

"I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."

___

On the Net:

St. Mary's Catholic Church: http://www.stmarysgvl.org/

Especially Reagan, but nothing new. 

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.