The Choice is a No Brainer

I claim no ability to enlighten anyone, but will ask questions and point some things out.

First, I think it is a peculiar sort of Christian who would vote for a man who promises to continue what has now been proved beyond doubt to be a war of choice in Iraq. In the eyes of the world, such wars are both illegal and immoral. Jesus Christ was the prince of peace, was he not? I don't recall him ever encouraging war, and I rather doubt that if he were alive today he would own a gun and vote Republican. In point of fact, I think his Sermon on the Mount and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes proves pretty conclusively that Jesus was (Gasp!) a liberal.

By the way, are you aware that McCain has repeatedly confused the Sunni Muslims in the the Middle East with the Shi'a? Apparently can't keep 'em straight. Do you know the difference, and do you know why it is important that the next president does?

You are aware that we have tortured prisoners and have gone to extraordinary lengths to do so. I think we have pretty much sacrificed the principled position we took after World War II and established "justice at Nuremberg". Who would Jesus torture?

Also, your mixing of politics with religion disturbs me, as it is the stated official position of the United States government that the United States is not, repeat NOT, in any way a Christian nation. But I'm sure you know that. How could you not? After all, this printed position was ratified by Congress and signed by the then-president.

Secondly, I think it is a peculiar sort of Christian who would vote for the man who promises to continue Bush's un-Christian domestic policies, which have conclusively favored rich people and corporations over the working class and the poor. The Holy Bible has over 3,000 references to helping the poor, but I can't think of even 3 Republican policies that directly do that, can you? Under the Bush policies, which your man promises to carry on, the median wage of the average American worker has fallen (while corporate profits have risen, some to record-levels), more Americans (and American children) have sunk into poverty, the price of gasoline has almost quadrupled, and the United States has achieved one of the highest infant-mortality rates in the First World. Do you think these were good results, and why would you want to continue these policies?

Under Bush, the American dollar has lost approximately one third of its value against the world's other major currencies. Do you approve of that? Under Bush, a record surplus inherited from President Clinton was turned into a record deficit in less than eight years. Do you think that was a good thing? Under Bush, the Iraq War has been fought entirely on borrowed money, which has resulted in China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Dubai holding a collective amount of debt that would catastrophically damage this country if it were called in at once. Do you approve of that? Are you aware that when Ronald Reagan took office the United States was the biggest creditor-nation in the world, and that right now we are the biggest debtor-nation in the world. Do you think that is a good thing?

I don't think it's very sensible (or patriotic) to vote for the man who promises to continue the Bush policies that have systematically stretched the capability of our armed forces to the breaking point through the back-door draft of stop-loss and repeated deployments. Do you know what stop-loss is? Do you approve of it? If so, why? If not, what alternative would you have our next president replace it with?

Are you aware that your man McCain does not support the new GI Bill, which has overwhelming (and probably veto-proof) bipartisan support in both house of Congress? How's that for supporting the troops? For that matter, how is that supporting the troops? Do you support the troops? If so, how?

Then there is the Constitution. I'm sure you know that until the Supreme Court's decision last week restoring "habeas corpus" (which McCain disagreed with and disapproves of), nine of the ten guarantees made to all Americans under the Bill of Rights had been taken away from us based entirely on Bush's illegally-assumed authority to define anyone as an "enemy combatant". Do you know what "habeas corpus" is? Do you like it? Did you miss it when it was gone? Are you glad to have it back? Can you tell me what single right was left when the other nine were taken away?

Morality. As you are aware from an earlier post, John McCain is a self-confessed adulterer, and under pretty unsavory circumstances at that. That means he deliberately and with premeditation broke some of the most solemn promises a man can voluntarily make, and which are customarily made in a house of God, in the eyes of God, and in front of one's best friends. He broke these solemn promises to get laid, which in my eyes makes him no better morally than President Clinton, whom I think is a loathesome human being. McCain was also a member of the Keating Five. Do you know why that's important? Do you know what they did? Why would you want a member of that august group to be president?

McCain has had a number of members of his campaign resign because they had been lobbyists for foreign companies and countries, some of whose interests did not exactly coincide with those of the United States. His chief financial advisor, Phil Gramm, was a lobbyist for the United Bank of Switzerland, and who encouraged McCain to adopt policies that favor that foreign bank over working Americans. Do you know what a lobbyist does?

Now you enlighten me please. Your original post seems to imply that Barack Obama has spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. He must have started in his twenties then, as he is not yet fifty. Who, in your view, did he aid and abet, and how?

If I hated America, I'd want its military to be weakened; I'd want its economy damaged; I'd want its bedrock foundation (the Constitution), that has made it the best nation in the world, undermined; I'd want its moral superiority negated, perhaps by ordering prisoners to be tortured under its flag and in its name; and last, I'd want its workforce demoralized by having millions of decent jobs sent overseas.

This administration can't claim one single policy success, foreign or domestic, and you are going to vote for the man who promises to continue all of the policies that have undermined this country. And, to make it worse, you say it's a "no brainer". I'm forced to agree, but I think my definition of "no brainer" is different from yours.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

In point of fact, I think his Sermon on the Mount and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes proves pretty conclusively that Jesus was (Gasp!) a liberal.

Only if you don't pay much attention to what Christ said, or what most liberals do. Most liberals make themselves feel like they are doing something when they sit around insisting the government do more to help people. Christ did not do this, nor did he advocate it. Christ taught us to help each other, most liberals whine that the government isn't doing enough, while they do nothing.

I've been on more than my share of humanitarian operations, I've worked with some pretty great people. It's funny, when you get out and get your hands dirty helping people, your not surrounded by a bunch of liberals, conservatives, moderates or anything else. You are surrounded by people who were willing to drop everything to come bust their butts to help complete strangers... and not get caught up in who gets credit and who doesn't.

You and I would probably agree on a lot of things McCain is and isn't... However, the whole "he's the same as Bush" rhetoric is as dishonest as McCain himself. He's spent the last 8 years blocking Bush every chance he could get. About the only things they do agree on is that the US can win the war in Iraq, and the president of the US should be a Republican. Well, the can and should win the war in Iraq. As for which party should have their nominee in the Oval Office next year... neither major party has shown any reason for us to care anymore. Both are going to expect the president to represent them instead of the US.

Successfully updated karma reason!

First, I think it is a peculiar sort of Christian who would vote for a man who promises to continue what has now been proved beyond doubt to be a war of choice in Iraq.

If you understand anything about faith, then you know that your statement is wrong. It is your opinion, not anything that has been "proved beyond doubt". As such, people may have differing opinions and therefore not support your faith in your opinion.

In point of fact, I think his Sermon on the Mount and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes proves pretty conclusively that Jesus was (Gasp!) a liberal.

Render onto Ceaser what is Ceasars - trying to use Jesus to support a political persuasion is the same as trying to limit God - futile and utterly useless.

Also, your mixing of politics with religion disturbs me

Not enough to not do the same thing apparently.

This administration can't claim one single policy success, foreign or domestic

First (and for the umpteenth time), Bush is not running. Learn it, live it, be it. Mccain is, and has been a gadfly against Bush much of his term, rightly or wrongly.

Second, you forgot to preface your statement (again) with "IMHO". As that is what it is. Many would point to NCLB, The Elderly Drug subsidy, The Tax cuts, The war on Terrorism, Reviving the economy that was severly damaged by the 9-11 attack, etc. (Personally I do not agree with my own list, but then that is MHO).

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Jesus Christ was the prince of peace, was he not?

Well, yes and no. Not in the context you're using. The peace he brought the first time was for individuals. It was not a corporate worldwide peace. That happens when he returns. His own words were:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on eath, I came not to send peace but a sword." Matt 10:34

In point of fact, I think his Sermon on the Mount and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes proves pretty conclusively that Jesus was (Gasp!) a liberal.

Ya, I've heard that before. One thing you're mistaken about tho. Yes, he came and he fed the hungry and healed the sick. But why did he do this? It wasn't their physical body he was after but their spiritual souls. Obama made reference to this (as a liberal) saying this was the reason Jesus came, to feed the hungry and care for the downtrodden. It was NOT. He came not to make sick people well. He came to give dead people life. His miracles were evidence of who he was. It was never about them. It was about HIM. He mentions this in John 5.

Also, your mixing of politics with religion disturbs me, as it is the stated official position of the United States government that the United States is not, repeat NOT, in any way a Christian nation. But I'm sure you know that. How could you not? After all, this printed position was ratified by Congress and signed by the then-president.

I can't separate my belief in God and go to the poll and vote against him. For a born again Christian there can be no separation. God is part of who I am. When we come to Christ we are IN Christ and He is IN us. It's like a marriage. I can't say I love my husband and then defy him and try to rationalize by separating the two.

You sound like a true liberal (NEA?) by trying to shut people like me up. Interesting

The Holy Bible has over 3,000 references to helping the poor,

Yes, and have you researched them? I have. Let me tell ya. It's not about free handouts. If you read the gospels you'd see many times Jesus would slip away from the crowds because he knew quite well and recognized that they were only following him for their next meal. They saw the multiplication of the loaves and fishes and looked at him as their next meal ticket. He hid from them.

Also if you are really interested in God's welfare system.....if you really are...read the book of Ruth. It only has four chapters. It'll take you 10 minutes to peruse it. Even the poor receiving help had to work for their food in an interesting way. Never, was there any indication we should just, as a habit, blindly feed the poor without expecting them to do their part. Paul said:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." 2 Thess 3:10

Morality. As you are aware from an earlier post, John McCain is a self-confessed adulterer, and under pretty unsavory circumstances at that. That means he deliberately and with premeditation broke some of the most solemn promises a man can voluntarily make, and which are customarily made in a house of God, in the eyes of God, and in front of one's best friends.

Now this here, I agree with you on and one reason I was not going to vote at all. I absolutely agree if one can't control and care for one's own home, how can we expect him to take care of a nation. This disturbs me although I don't have all the details. It's still bothersome to see him leave the wife of his youth behind.

At the same time, I know we are all not without sin. We all make at some point in our lives very grievious mistakes and wrong turns. But what I see coming from Obama disturbs me even more than this. What you don't know is that months ago, I was adament that I could not vote in good conscience. Now, I feel it's not so much that I'm voting FOR McCain but that I'm voting AGAINST Obama because he disturbs me with his words and actions that don't match.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

This administration can't claim one single policy success, foreign or domestic, and you are going to vote for the man who promises to continue all of the policies that have undermined this country. And, to make it worse, you say it's a "no brainer". I'm forced to agree, but I think my definition of "no brainer" is different from yours.

are you serious?

How many back on Sept 11, 2001 thought that there WOULD NEVER be another attack on U.S. soil? Not me. Not anybody. We were all fearful.

The Bush administration deserves HUGE kudos for keeping us safe here on our own soil.

You're nuts if you think otherwise.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't agree, Parated, with your experience of liberals. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a "hands-on" kind of liberal. In any event, I, as a liberal, believe that the government can and should be an instrument towards helping people. The prosperity we as adults have all experienced in our lifetimes is a direct result of liberal policies put in place by people like FDR during the Great Depression. And while McCain has cultivated a reputation as a maverick, he has lately reversed himself on almost all issues that separated him from Bush. If you doubt it, google the "Bush McCain Challenge", and take it. I flatly disagree with your last statement - I think the Dems can much more adequately represent the country as a whole than the Republicans have for the last eight years, particularly up to 2006 when the Republican Congress was a complete rubber-stamp for Bush.

Dr. Guy - Sorry, the Iraq War was proved to be a war of choice as of the release of the Downing Street Memo. Add the mountains of evidence produced since then, from "Plame-gate" through the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report earlier this month, and you have it. You may choose to ignore it, but it's a case that can, should, and hopefully will, be made in a court of law.

I know Bush is not running, but McCain is promising to continue the Iraq War and most of his economic policies. That makes Bush fair game.

Good point about "my humble opinion", but I don't agree with your list either. The economy was NOT revived after 9/11, we simply ran up a mountain of debt, which is now catching up to us.

Now, to "Kickin'" - I'm not remotely trying to "shut [you] up, and don't know where that came from. First, I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus, but you are entitled to it. I still find your views on the war incompatible with Christianity, but you're entitled to them.

I never said the poor shouldn't help themselves, nor did the Democrats. It was President Clinton who undertook welfare reform, after all.

Glad we agree on something, even if it is only that adulterers are vile people. As for sin, indeed we are all sinners, but it is the premeditation of adultery and the degree of betrayal that bother me the most. In my view, because of the nature of the marriage ceremony, when you betray your wife you also betray God and everyone who chose to share the occasion of your wedding with you.

I'm completely unaware of what Obama has done that even approaches the level of betrayal exhibited by Senator McCain. I asked you to tell me how he has aided and abetted those who hate America, but you didn't tell me.

As for 9/11, I don't buy your point. First, I think that 9/11 largely happened because Bush and Company were asleep at the switch. Secondly, I'm aware that the Bush administration did everything in its power to first prevent, and then obstruct, the investigation into what happened on that awful day. I am NOT, repeat NOT, pushing a conspiracy theory, but I want full disclosure about the event, and this administration has deliberately kept that from happening.

As for there not having been another attack, I submit that that is so because no one bothered. Face it, "Kickin'", our borders are wide open, there are illegal immigrants all over the country, guns are easy to get, and another attack would be no trouble at all. I think it is far more likely that we have been left alone because the terrorists (Al Qaida) got exactly what they wanted. This country for the last eight years has been undermined from within, thanks to the worst president in history. There's an old military axiom (from Napoleon, I think) that you never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Last point - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This has now been proved. Nothing - nada - zip -zilch - bubkis. Why did we go there?

Last point for Parated - one of the frustrating thing about teaching 7th-grade is that I seldom know what happens to my students when they go on to high school. I'm sorry to tell you that some of them have died by gunfire on the streets of L.A., either because they became involved with gangs or were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (one kid was killed in a drive-by just after he had come out of Bible class on a Sunday morning). The few who have come back to see me are doing well, and while I can't take more than fractional credit, I'm proud of my having helped them on the road to productive and happy lives.

Last point to "Kickin'" - you left virtually all of my factual points about Bush's policies (which are relevant because McCain has now embraced them) unresponded to. I addresssed your version of Christianity because you brought it to the playing field in your screen name. The issue was politics. Do you think that the Bush presidency has made the United States more prosperous, safe, and secure. If you do, then back it up with facts please.

Successfully updated karma reason!

+1 web post skills to catguy.... epic win!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't agree, Parated, with your experience of liberals. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a "hands-on" kind of liberal.

Yes, Jimmy Carter's work withe Habitat for Humanity is a great example of a hands on humanitarian. However, even Habitat for Humanity isn't packed with liberals.

In any event, I, as a liberal, believe that the government can and should be an instrument towards helping people.

We're talking about helping in the context of what Jesus taught. While there are a VERY few things only the government can do, Jesus never taught anything about welfare as a government institution. He charged us as Individuals to help each other. Government welfare is the antithesis of Christianity as it is welfare by force, not love. Charity by force is satanic. It gives the hypocrites a way to insist someone else do the work and destroys the human spirit. It creates a dependence on taxpayer money, instead of helping people rise above the need. I can think of lots of private programs and individuals who have helped families out of poverty... Name one government welfare program that has ended the need for government housing in any area at all.

The "war on poverty" has killed more people, stolen more lives, and cost more money than any war of beans and bullets.

The prosperity we as adults have all experienced in our lifetimes is a direct result of liberal policies put in place by people like FDR during the Great Depression.

Total and complete BS! FDR took what should have been a depression that lasted a few years and extended it to a whole decade. The alphabet soup programs did keep people busy, but they dug a deeper whole in the economy. WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression.

And while McCain has cultivated a reputation as a maverick, he has lately reversed himself on almost all issues that separated him from Bush.

Yeah, like Global Warming, Illegal Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, and how to fight the war in Iraq.

If you doubt it, google the "Bush McCain Challenge", and take it.

I'll have to check it out.

I flatly disagree with your last statement - I think the Dems can much more adequately represent the country as a whole than the Republicans have for the last eight years, particularly up to 2006 when the Republican Congress was a complete rubber-stamp for Bush.

They had control of Congress for decades, never once ending a single welfare problem. They have had control of Congress for 2 years now and have accomplished nothing.

Sorry, but reality and history prove you wrong here.

Not that I think Republicans are any better at welfare, the fact is, the government CANNOT run an effective welfare program... heck, they can't even run an efficient cafeteria.

Successfully updated karma reason!

btw, I don't think McCain is a "maverick", I think he's a spineless wimp who kisses up to whoever provides the most gain for himself with the least amount of effort. He retired his spine with his Navy ditty bag.

Successfully updated karma reason!

btw, I don't think McCain is a "maverick", I think he's a spineless wimp who kisses up to whoever provides the most gain for himself with the least amount of effort. He retired his spine with his Navy ditty bag.

He knows the system is broken....But even if he wins he'll be a lame duck from day 1.
Thats's not good because he'll have to try to fight 3 wars at the same time to make a "legacy" for himself.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The prosperity we as adults have all experienced in our lifetimes is a direct result of liberal policies put in place by people like FDR during the Great Depression.

Another thought I just had... Isn't it ironic that modern day liberals praise FDR's RRR programs, but now protest every project the RRR did?

Successfully updated karma reason!

On the lighter side of the Republican race for president - for the second time, recipes reported to be Cindy McCain's (the candidate's wife), apparently put on the McCain Campaign website to make the $100,000,000 heiress look like a homemaker, proved to have been lifted word for word from other places including Rachel Ray's show on the Food Network.

On the darker side of the Republican race for President, the Texas Republican Party is featuring buttons saying "If Obama is President, will we still call it the White House?". That's class. Oh, and in Utah, a Republican couple is marketing sock puppets of a monkey as Barack Obama.

And for anyone who has the nerve, google "Republicans - sex with a mule" and see what you get. And no, I'm not kidding.

Oh, and Parated, I'd be interested to know the source of your opinion about FDR and his lengthening of the Great Depression. What about Social Security? And any "government" housing program would not end the need for government housing, it would provide it or subsidize it. I think the primary government responsibility towards the poor is in the areas of education and employment. I don't want the poor supported, I want them helped. And not the way Bush helped the poor in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, either. And as for the Dems having controlled Congress for decades, it was usually under a Republican president.

However, it is the Republican Party that had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for six years, and still has effective control of the Senate for the last two. I maintain that in that period of time America has been weakened financially, morally, and militarily as a direct result of those policies. If you disagree, then back it up with facts and figures. If you agree, then why would you vote for McCain?

Do you want to continue the war on borrowed money?

Do you want to continue the stop-loss program?

Do you want to keep outsourcing American jobs?

Do you want the president to have "unitary executive" powers, and if so, justify it under the Constitution please.

Do you want the dollar to continue to fall against other major currencies?

If you do, then by all means, vote for McCain.

I'm no supporter of the current Democratic Congress myself. If they had any guts, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached long ago, inherent contempt would have been used on Rove, Harriett Myers and Josh Bolton.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, and Parated, I'd be interested to know the source of your opinion about FDR and his lengthening of the Great Depression.

Here's page one of a yahoo search of "fdr policies made the depression worse".
[link] http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=fdr+policies+made+the+depression+worse&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 [/link}

Now the question is, will you change the discussion by attacking the references (which is why I hate giving references in a discussion), or will you take them for what they are and continue on topic?

What about Social Security?

Social Security is the lie that keeps on lying. Do you realize that FDR promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary, the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into it, the money the participants elected to put into it would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and could only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program and the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

All of FDR's promises were broken... all were broken by Democrats.

And any "government" housing program would not end the need for government housing, it would provide it or subsidize it. I think the primary government responsibility towards the poor is in the areas of education and employment. I don't want the poor supported, I want them helped.

You contradict yourself here. You say you want poor people helped, but you admit that housing projects only provide and subsidize housing. In other words, it warehouses poor people and removes any external incentive to want help towards education and employment.

The fact is, ANY program that provides basic needs without requiring anything from the recipients is destructive instead of helpful.

And not the way Bush helped the poor in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, either.

Unless you have also read the New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Plan, you don't even want to start with me on this. Don't sit there and ignorantly try to spew meaningless bash Bush rhetoric when I know that the idiots Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco REFUSED to activate their respective Emergency Protocols for Hurricane disasters. They sat on their greedy drunk butts and expected FEMA to do THEIR jobs for them.

You can't say a word against anyone but THOSE TWO if you want to talk about why Hurricane Katrina turned in to such a fiasco.

And as for the Dems having controlled Congress for decades, it was usually under a Republican president.

So what! I know the incompetent press has you (and many others) brainwashed into thinking that Congress has no more responsibility than sitting around waiting for ideas from the White House to vote on, but guess what, that is a total and complete lie.

The Constitution of the United States assigns far more domestic responsibility to the Legislative Branch than the Executive Branch. It must be great to be in the House or Senate at a time when all THEIR laziness and corruption gets blamed on the President.

Where are all the audits that the Democrats LIED about conducting? That is THEIR responsibility, yet they promised to audit Hurricane Katrina and war expenditures, yet they haven't even broached the subject since taking power. Instead they play infantile blame games and mindless citizens applaud their smelly diapers.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Both parties are to blame....As far as the press you have to look close to find the good stuff. There's plenty of good investigative reporting that shows how both sides have screwed us. You can take any issue and if you don't take sides from the start you will usually find which politicians are involved, and there are usually several from both sides that help derail something. You pretty much have to ignore what the politicians say. I don't see any difference between the parties anymore. They both tell you they are going to do very different things, but they both do the same thing. Take your tax dollars and give them to the people who help them win their campaigns. Everything is contracted out to business with minimal or no bidding and no oversight. This is not a GOP thing, both parties are doing it and the Average Joe is taking it up the hiney.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Both parties are to blame....As far as the press you have to look close to find the good stuff. There's plenty of good investigative reporting that shows how both sides have screwed us. You can take any issue and if you don't take sides from the start you will usually find which politicians are involved, and there are usually several from both sides that help derail something. You pretty much have to ignore what the politicians say. I don't see any difference between the parties anymore. They both tell you they are going to do very different things, but they both do the same thing. Take your tax dollars and give them to the people who help them win their campaigns. Everything is contracted out to business with minimal or no bidding and no oversight. This is not a GOP thing, both parties are doing it and the Average Joe is taking it up the hiney.

I agree.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Dr. Guy - Sorry, the Iraq War was proved to be a war of choice as of the release of the Downing Street Memo.

Which was later shown to be a fraud.

[quote]I know Bush is not running, but McCain is promising to continue the Iraq War and most of his economic policies. That makes Bush fair game.[quote]

Of course he is! Everything is fair game in Politics. I was not tying to limit what is and is not in play, only to point out what is or is not a losing strategy. Running against Bush will play to the faithful, but not the mainstream that elects leaders. That is something both Kerry and gore (and by extension all democrats) should have learned in 2k and 04, but sadly it seems to have not taken hold.

Good point about "my humble opinion", but I don't agree with your list either. The economy was NOT revived after 9/11, we simply ran up a mountain of debt, which is now catching up to us.

We can debate the economy on another thread. My point was that Bush has done a lot - whether you like them or not is another matter. I like some, I dont like others. But to categorically state that he has no accomplishments is to state that America 2008 is identical to America 2000 - and is patently false. Some, yourself perhaps as well, will say it is worse off - why? it cant be worse off if Bush has no accomplishments. I merely threw out a few accomplishments that Bush has achieved. And made clear I in no way agree with all of them. In other words, I think in some respects we are better off - and in others we are worse off.

Successfully updated karma reason!

for the second time, recipes reported to be Cindy McCain's (the candidate's wife), apparently put on the McCain Campaign website to make the $100,000,000 heiress look like a homemaker, proved to have been lifted word for word from other places including Rachel Ray's show on the Food Network.

Sounds like she fits the mold of Hillary Clinton and Teresa Heinz Kerry.

I'd be interested to know the source of your opinion about FDR and his lengthening of the Great Depression.

You might want to start with Milton Friedman and Walter E Williams. Many of the monetarist economists contend that - myself included.

And as for the Dems having controlled Congress for decades, it was usually under a Republican president.

But Congress controls the purse strings. In the end, all a president really controls is foreign policy. Congress controls domestic.

I'm no supporter of the current Democratic Congress myself. If they had any guts, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached long ago, inherent contempt would have been used on Rove, Harriett Myers and Josh Bolton.

Eh, no. If they had any guts, they would get off that kick completely since there are no grounds for impeachment. That they have not shows no guts and a pandering to the loonies on the left.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A congress and president of the same party; thank god. With no more veto threat, a bill can have a 51-49 vote in senate and be signed into law without problem. I am so excited (;

Successfully updated karma reason!

Completely unrelated to the topic above but I couldn't resist. You can continue your discussion now.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have to go to work, so will respond at length later. However, I must once again point out that no one is responding to my questions, which I will now ask again.

Are you happy we fought the Iraq War on borrowed money? Do you want to continue to do this?

Do you agree with the "unitary executive" theory that gives the president the powers of a dictator and makes him above the law?

Are you happy we got "habeas corpus" back?

Do you support the new GI Bill? If not, just how are you supporting the troops?

Do you agree with the stop-loss policy?

Are you happy that private contractors are basically holding the army hostage in Iraq (see latest story re: KBR billion dollar overcharge and firing of army auditor who discovered it)?

Are you pleased that the dollar has lost a third of its value under the Bush administration?

Re: references - I asked for the reference so I can see where the argument came from. It's not an argument I am familiar with, and of course I will have my own refutation. Feel free to ask any of my sources.

Successfully updated karma reason!

PS to Dr. Guy - There were 35 Articles of Impeachment read on the floor of the House of Representatives recently. They make interesting reading, and for you to say there are no grounds simply betrays your prejudice and ignorance. Unless, of course, you have read them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

They make interesting reading, and for you to say there are no grounds simply betrays your prejudice and ignorance. Unless, of course, you have read them.

I have. Have you? get real. They are trying to impeach him for spitting on the sidewalk. You can charge anyone with anything (Paris October surprise anyone?), including incest. With no basis in fact, it just shows that congress is nothing more than a mouth piece for the loons on the left.

Successfully updated karma reason!

.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Are you happy we fought the Iraq War on borrowed money? Do you want to continue to do this?

non-sequitar. Are you happy you drive a pinto? Do you continue to drive a pinto? Same question, different subject. It has nothing to do with why we are there or not.

Do you agree with the "unitary executive" theory that gives the president the powers of a dictator and makes him above the law?

No. But why bring CLinton into this?

Are you happy we got "habeas corpus" back?

Do you mean after 1865? Or perhaps you can reference where it was suspended for Citizens?

Do you support the new GI Bill? If not, just how are you supporting the troops?

Do you support he old GI Bill? Do you support the Republican version? Why not? Explain how you can support the troops and not support every version.

Do you agree with the stop-loss policy?

I will leave that to the ones affected by it.

Are you happy that private contractors are basically holding the army hostage in Iraq (see latest story re: KBR billion dollar overcharge and firing of army auditor who discovered it)?

Basically? basically we are all monkeys. Basically the democrats have written the policy on Iraq. basically we are all just corpses waiting to die.
Or do you want to infer that this is the first time in history that there has been fraud and waste in the federal government?

Are you pleased that the dollar has lost a third of its value under the Bush administration?

Are you? Do you like polution? Do you like the Greenhouse gasses effects? Do you want to poison the soil and the drinking water?

Re: references - I asked for the reference so I can see where the argument came from. It's not an argument I am familiar with, and of course I will have my own refutation. Feel free to ask any of my sources.

References to what? Your opinion? You ask some good questions, but then slant them by your own bias. Which is fine, we all do that. However, stating a loaded question based upon your bias does not require refernces, just opinions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Now, to "Kickin'" - I'm not remotely trying to "shut [you] up, and don't know where that came from. First, I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus, but you are entitled to it. I still find your views on the war incompatible with Christianity, but you're entitled to them.

it came from the statement you made that because I was a Christian, it was disturbing to you, that I would speak out on politics.

Now as far as "my interpretation?" It has nothing to do with my interpretation. I gave you the source himself. His own words and actions. If you're going to make claims about what Jesus believed or meant, then you'd best be prepared to back up your claims. And you did not I see. This has nothing to do with opinion. So you keep belieivng what you want based on non-evidence. Nothing I can do about that.

I asked you to tell me how he has aided and abetted those who hate America, but you didn't tell me.

Basically all I have to say is Farrakhan (leader of Islam) and Wright (not really a messenger from God) just to keep it simple.

Farrakhan called whites "blue-eyed devils" and the anti-christ." He described Jews as "bloodsuckers" who control the government and the media and some black organizatons.

Obama spent thousands of dollars giving support to his Rev Wright and I don't think I have to start putting down quotes from his hate America speeches do I? I don't claim to know alot about his Chicago affiliations but the word is out he hung with some pretty unsavory fellows there who weren't exactly looking out for America's best interest.

for the second time, recipes reported to be Cindy McCain's (the candidate's wife), apparently put on the McCain Campaign website to make the $100,000,000 heiress look like a homemaker, proved to have been lifted word for word from other places including Rachel Ray's show on the Food Network.

so how does this compare to Michelle Obama calling us "whiteys?"

On the darker side of the Republican race for President, the Texas Republican Party is featuring buttons saying "If Obama is President, will we still call it the White House?". That's class. Oh, and in Utah, a Republican couple is marketing sock puppets of a monkey as Barack Obama.

so what? People are going to do these things on both sides. Who cares? It's their way of using their freedom of speech. I wouldn't be bothered myself and would rather take my time debating the issues but to each his own as they say.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Choice is a No Brainer

Who Are You Voting For?