Obama Facts Never Aired Before!

How do we know it is factorial coming from Hannity when it is just opinion not facts?are you talking about  Ayers? That was put to bed yesterday by Federal Prosecutor William C. Ibershof that cleared  of any wrong doing. He blamed John Mitchell the Attorney General and Nixon at the time for illegal wire taping, illegal breakins as Daniel Ellsberg's office over the Pentagon Papers and illegal search and seizes. Due to these actions by corrupt Republicans including the President Ayers could not be prosecuted, therefore if the Republicans had not broken the law 40 years ago Ayers would probably be in jail right now and Obama would have never known him and now they want to link him to Ayers when he was 8 years old the Prosecutor stated I don't think so.

Hannity?

I wouldn't believe that guy if he tried to convince me day was light and night was dark.

I don't understand the reference between praying and voting. Unless you are asking 'What Would Jesus Do?' or something along that line. He'd probably tell you he doesn't get involved in the politics of individual countries.

Has to do with what's His and what belongs to Caesar.

Well the real problem is who are these people they are interviewing are they truthful your right Hannity can't be trusted I wish it was Jim Lear or Walter Cronkite I'd believe it more  they do real journalism not the fake kind where you can put it together as you want.

eh  it really is a non issue.

fox news viewers are already voting for the old man and his barbie..

no one else really cares what fox news says

pray for yourself charlie..  we don't need or want your help.

tschreck,

It is a non issue. But thats because both candidates are clowns.

Im amazed, these two are really the best available for the office of President????

WOW!

Weak candidates are there for a reason. They are the ones that those holding the purse strings want us to choose between. Either one is easily controlled. This is what our democracy is degrading to.

I'm not amazed because there's one clown that would be an excellent for president since you think neither one of these candidates our good enough .

So look in the mirror and congratulate yourself Mr. President

Robert Blevins:

Unless you are asking 'What Would Jesus Do?' or something along that line. He'd probably tell you he doesn't get involved in the politics of individual countries.

Has to do with what's His and what belongs to Caesar.

   Jesus argued in the Sermon on the Mount that His followers were to be "salt" and "light" (Matthew 5:13, 14). "Salt" in Jesus' day was used as a preservative for food stuffs. "Light" dispels the darkness. John R.W. Stott, rector emeritus of All Souls Church in London says of this text: "The function of salt is largely negative: it prevents decay. The function of light is positive: it illumines the darkness. So Jesus calls his disciples to exert a double influence on the secular community, a negative influence by arresting its decay and a positive influence by bringing light into darkness. For it is one thing to stop the spread of evil; it is another to promote the spread of truth, beauty and goodness. Putting the two metaphors together, it seems legitimate to discern in them the proper relationship between evangelism and social action in the total mission of Christ in the world."

Sorry, but Jesus was asking his followers to preserve the "Word of God" not to infuse government with religion.   Nice try extrapolating to serve your own purpose though.

preserve

That's what a library does. Spread would be the correct term!

not to infuse government with religion.

Where would it say that (in context) in the bible?

I would bet you believe in the separation clause in relation to the Constitution.

<blockquote>'What Would Jesus Do?'</blockquote>

 That is so stupid and one big problem with religion. Since there is no evidence that Jesus has never spoken to anyone it's up to everyone and anyone's interpretation. But of course since the Pope is infallible that may be the definitive word. Except I’m wondering about that “earth is the center of the universe theory” they defended so vigorously (among others) for so many centuries??? And a pity all those people who dissagreed had to get their head chopped of.

Our founding fathers insisted on a separation of church and state for a good reason, and that is so that no one religious sect (be they christian or other) should have domain over the whole of a country or impose their sectarian morals on those who disagree.  This is important for the very basic reason that everyone has the right practice (or not practice) their own beliefs without being harassed by others for it.  It frightens me to see the shift, which has been occurring mainly since the McCarthy era, from our nation as a democracy to one of a quasi-theocracy.  Many of the original settlers of America came here seeking freedom to worship as they chose, and yet some religious fundamentalists seem to want to convert everyone to their way of thinking.   Being raised Quaker I believe that the church has no place in politics and I am quite partial to Matthew chapter 6 verses 5-6 which state:

5. And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward. 6. But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father which is in secret; and your Father which sees in secret shall reward you openly.

I believe that we as Americans should try to be a positive influence for good, and while I believe that faith plays an important role in who we as individuals are... for the sake of religious freedom, I don't believe that the government should seem biased toward any one religious sect.

Oh and one of the other major reasons that our founding fathers insisted on a separation between church and state is due to the costly (both monetarily and in loss of lives) religious wars that had been waged for centuries in Europe.

Bec,

Many of the original settlers of America came here seeking freedom to worship as they chose, and yet some religious fundamentalists seem to want to convert everyone to their way of thinking.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

It is not just a club or church building or for fun it is the "Great Commission" It is not about "Can't we all just get along"

Separation theology you mention does not exist in the constitution but it does say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” which means there shall be no established state church like there was in England the country we (my family) left due to religious persecution. Seperation is only mentioned in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church.

My mom used to say:

The Lord did give us a brain to use not just fill space between our ears.

I don't have an issue with Jesus, he was just some guy who wanted people to play nicely. It's not his fault that society took his well-meaning lessons and turned them into some incredible orgy of fear, prejudice, and outright stupidity.

Mr. Imaginary Man in the Sky, save me from your inbred followers.

Charlie,

I'm still waiting for factual evidence.  The videos I have seen show circumstantial evidence....last I heard it was not enough to convict a person in our court of law just on circumstantial evidence.....

Marvin,

I know, I know. Obama is probably the greatest candidate ever as far as your concerned. I see a candidate who changes his position whenever is convenient. I dont really believe he has any real conviction about anything besides his desire to be president. I call him "mr. say anything" because that is all he is. So that makes me a clown? How is that, its not me but you who is judging his worthiness for this office by standards other than what his past behaviour and positions are. What standard do you use, hmm, I wonder?

back n black-

I see a candidate who changes his position whenever is convenient. I dont really believe he has any real conviction about anything besides his desire to be president. I call him "mr. say anything" because that is all he is. So that makes me a clown? How is that, its not me but you who is judging his worthiness for this office by standards other than what his past behaviour and positions are.

the reason you see this is because you are looking at john mccain..

it is nice that you see him for what he really is.

Darkdonnie,

Seperation is only mentioned in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church.

This is not true, if you look on line you can find quotes from not only Thomas Jefferson, but Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Henry Clay, Baptist minister John Leland, and in later days by such distinguished men as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Rutherford B. Hayes.....  If you like I will e-mail you some quotes, but Charlie is correct in saying that we have strayed from the subject at hand.

The subject of Hanity and his "very important documentary".  I don't believe Hanity to be anything more that a gossip monger.  His style of 'journalism' is right up there with The Enquirer.  I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is relevent to the election.  If you want to talk about character, there are plenty of places where McCain could hang himself... let alone Palin!  But neither of those topics interest me much either... I am more interested in what a candidate is going to do to help this country become prosperous and strong, and in so doing make it secure once more.

How is that, its not me but you who is judging his worthiness for this office by standards other than what his past behaviour and positions are. What standard do you use, hmm, I wonder?

back n'black,

You want other standards?  Lets try something novel and talk about the issues.  Factcheck.org has stated that Obama's health care plan will help get health insurance for 18 times the number of people that McCain's plan will...  Obama's tax plan will bring in $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years to the U.S. treasury, where as McCain's plan will cost the U.S. treasury $600 billion in the same amount of time...  Obama has worked for education reform in his own state and will work to reform The sorely deficient American educational system...  Obama will begin to bring troops home from a war that has cost this country thousands of lives and billions of dollars a month.  It is for these reasons that Senator Obama has my vote.  He has my vote because I agree with him on the issues that are important to me.

Bec,

Separation theology you mention does not exist in the constitution

Ezeques will tell you quite clearly, "I am an Atheist." That is as good a belief as any other.

So what do you mean by this?

I simply don’t believe in things where there is no evidence for their existence. When that's not the case I can believe in a whole lot of nonsensical things like Santa Clause, fire breathing dragons, pink elephants, Zeus, hell, virgins in heaven, gods, and etc. People believed in lots of ridiculous things before science and some still do. There is no more evidence for God than there is for pink elephants, Zeus or hell.

 And one can also make a good case that people who believe in this nonsense can be harmful…especially politicians in office. Belief in the Book of Revelation is a good reason that people like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin should not be in the White House. They claim to be carrying out God's word but it’s their interpretation of God’s word because he has never spoken to anyone that I know of.

Ezeques,

Are you an Atheist? Do you BELIEVE there is no god?

Do you believe in evolution?

Are you an Atheist? Do you BELIEVE there is no god?

What's there to believe?

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Separation theology you mention does not exist in the constitution

Darkdonnie,
Perhaps it isn't written into the constitution but there is plenty of evidence (in their own words) to suggest that is how the founding fathers intended this country to be run... and that is how it was generally interpreted up until the last few decades.  The words 'in god we trust' were not added to U.S. currency until November 13th, 1861 and the words "under god" were not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954.  There are quotes from not just the founding fathers, but also several presidents, supreme court justices, and other prominent figures in American history that call for a separation of church and state.  You can choose to remain ignorant of this fact if you like, but our country was founded by men of reason, who knew the danger inherently present in a theocracy.

Do you BELIEVE there is no god?
Do you believe in evolution?

I believe in both god and evolution. I don't think they are mutually exclusive

sourkovr,

Im so glad that you do not have a problem with Jesus! There, thats my positive spin.

Actually, though im sure you are well versed in the subject, Jesus did not come here to get us to play nice. That isnt even possible!!!!

He came here to die for you, to give you the chance of not frying like a slice of hormel bacon in a skillet. Try lighting yourself on fire some time for a taste of what your future holds without this Jesus who you think came here to just get us to play nice. Its a little more serious than whether we play nice. I dont expect such an intelligent and man of the world type as yourself to give that any credence, as I have no doubt you wont, but you will be reminded of it at that time. But by all means, have your fun and poke and laugh now.

I dont expect such an intelligent and man of the world type as yourself to give that any credence, as I have no doubt you wont, but you will be reminded of it at that time. But by all means, have your fun and poke and laugh now.

Back N'Black,

Really, is that necessary... and you wonder why so many are driven away from christianity when they hear such fire and brimstone d@mn@tion being uttered by people who would represent gods word?  Jesus taught tolerance, why don't you show some and ignore people who would seek to insult your belief.  If you are secure in your belief, then what does it matter what they think?

Bec,

Jesus taught tolerance,

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

"I am the way" No ambivalence or inclusiveness or tolerance here!

“The truth” Not including any others views only his truth.

“And the Life” Life depends on it

“No one comes to the father” No one means ultimately exclusive of all!

“Except through Me” The only loophole to avoid an existence without GOD!

Plenty have subverted the message in the past to condone violence and it is wrong of them!

Plenty have subverted the message in the present to condone inclusiveness and it is wrong!

I personally do not care if you accept the message I am only commanded to give it and the rest is up to you and God!

Somebody please expalin to me how in the 21st Century we can still beleive in eternal damantion and hellfire and that God is some benificent old codger with a white beard who loves us all but has no problem with throwing us all to the wolves if we do not believe with every fiber of our being in him, even though we may lead a good and upright life.

bec30 and george orwell,

first of all thankyou darkdonnie for laying out some of that like you did, if anyone was actually wandering about the issue instead of what is here, those decided regardless against it, that would be helpful.

Having said that, let me be clear as darkdonnie said as well, I do not care the least bit whether or not you enjoy what im saying, or find acceptable what im saying. I know for a fact that you will not, yes my bible tells me that as well! I tell you there is eternal damnation and hell fire because God warns you about it and commands those who follow him to likewise warn others. Your life is short, you will die, this is a fact. Your problems only begin there. The fact that its the 21st century is irrelevant, you are still just as surely going to burn in hell without Christ, you might as well object to people in the 21st century who still believe in gravity. Again, fully aware how absurd you want to believe this all is, I actually wish it was. I dont enjoy telling you this, especially when I know you will just think it is absurd. I, as all believer, am commanded to do so in the bible by God out of concern for you, to warn you to not go there.

 If you saw your child playing in the road and a semi coming down the road towards your child, how would you present your message.  Would you sugar coat it and say, mommy loves you honey, why dont you please come over here because mommy loves you. No, that is stupid.

You would scream at your child to get out of the road, there is a truck coming down the road. That is all I am told to do, and why. The threat is certain, your destination being hell is certain. God does not want you there, he's told us to give you this hellfire and brimstone damnation stuff as you call it, because he knows how real and certain this is for you, and is trying to warn you.

Its amazing to me as a believer, though not the least unexpected, that it is actually out of motivation to protect you in warning you of whats coming if you dont turn to Christ, that you would still get such enjoyment in attacking those same people, but this has always been the case throughout the history of christianity. That is something else that hasnt changed, even though it is the 21st century.

bec30,

Actually this culture of today that is critical of Christianity and its followers and results in people being driven away from God and his word as you say has nothing to do with people who actually still believe Gods word and present the reality of heaven and hell in clear contrast to the non believer so that they may choose, because it is a choice.

Actually, what led to the state that you describe, is Christians who lost their convictions and who compromised on their faith with the world, and instead tried to be more like those of the world in order to try to "get along". Cowardice and fear is what led many Christian leaders since world war 2 to abandon the clear mission and presentation of the gospel to the lost as the only remedy for their hopeless situation.

In place now in many so called  christian churces, are christian programs and socials, a social gospel preached that has nothing to do with the Bible or the Jesus Christ of that Bible, but is rather a cheapened synthetic christianity that instead is designed primarily to pander to the "trivial" needs of people, in order to bring them in to pack the pews and keep church attendance's up. That is hypocrisy, and that is the message that has been broad casted loud and clear by a large segment, that calls itself christianity to the world, but really this fallen from grace christianity's message is the equivalent of religious masturbation. That is what led to this abhorance of christianity in this country that you speak of, not speaking the truth from the bible. That truth is not tolerance as its premium. Tolerance is the premium value of that new christianity that is more concerned with worldly things, like bolstering church attendances and increasing giving to the church, and little to do with the all important work of seeking out and saving those that are lost.

Darkdonnie and Back n'Black....
I believe in Jesus, I just don't believe in you.  I was raised Quaker and if you had ever been to a Quaker meeting you would not think it was a social gathering.  First off, Quaker meetings are silent.  There is no minister, there is no choir.  There is only you and god for 45 minutes.  Quakers don't believe you can tell anyone how to believe, each person has to find that path for themselves or it does not truly belong to them... parents raise their children to think for themselves and find their own path of faith.  This doesn't mean we don't believe in god and Jesus, it means that we find our spiritual path to them through what we read, hear, see, and comprehend.  Quakers also believe that the way to god is found more in the kind deeds you show others (helping people less fortunate than yourselves... turn the other cheek... etc.) than in righteous speech.  You say cowardice and fear led to this way of thinking? Then maybe you can explain to me why many early Quakers were killed for practicing their beliefs? No? Let me give you a hint... Quakers have always been tolerant of other beliefs and have been proponents of women's rights, and equality for all human kind. That has not always made us popular and our ancestors suffered for their beliefs!

All I'm asking is who are you to judge?  In Matthew 7: 1-2, Jesus says:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

We can exchange theologies all day and probably find bible quotes to back them (I was raised in a very spiritual home), but frankly I don't have the time or the patience to do so with you.  My point is you are not God.  It is not for you to judge where someone will go when they die because it is not your place to do so... the bible is clear on that one.  And I'm sure you can find all sorts of he!!fire and brimstone quotes to shoot off at me about d^mn^tion of the wicked, but you can save them for someone else... because the fact is that I am not wicked, I just don't agree with you on how to treat people.  Which may upset you, but there is nothing in the bible that says I'm going to he!! for my beliefs.

but is rather a cheapened synthetic christianity that instead is designed primarily to pander to the "trivial" needs of people, in order to bring them in to pack the pews and keep church attendance's up

I doubt very much that many people are drawn to Quakerism by our "cheap" version of Christianity.  In fact few people who are not raised in the religion are aware of us and usually confuse us with the Amish (I think it's the Quaker Oats guy).  We don't pander to anyone...  our belief is a difficult path, because we are not handed our belief, we have to work for it.  We can't just go to church and call ourselves righteous, we have to go out and do good.  You don't know me at all, and the notion that you think you know me well enough to judge me is foolish and shows you are prejudice of everyone who isn't a spiritual clone of you.  Just because we don't always agree with you, doesn't mean we are shallow or godless.  After all it was the Quakers who were

Tolerance is the premium value of that new christianity that is more concerned with worldly things

Then I hope for your sake that you are poor, otherwise I fear you will never get to heaven.  After all, wasn't it Jesus who said:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

wow bec30,

Actually Quakerism was the thing furthest from my mind. I honestly wasnt aware that there were still quakers, I guess there are so good for you, im aware many of the firstimmigrants over to America in 16 and early 1700's were quakers who like other christian sects differing from Englands Angelican church fled to our shores to escape religious persecution. Though I honestly cannot say I know whether Quakers today are the same as those back then.

Clearly you took personally some general claims I made, first and foremost the "

but is rather a cheapened synthetic christianity that instead is designed primarily to pander to the "trivial" needs of people, in order to bring them in to pack the pews and keep church attendance's up" comment.

This was a commentary on the prevailing state of American modern day christianity, with no Quakers in mind, as I wasnt even aware there were still any! Regardless of your notions of it, it still is true.

The Christian church today is a watered down christianity were the first focus is social virtue and relegated to the back pew if still preached at all, is the gospel, the need for everyone to confess themselves a sinner and confess christ as their saviour, who died on the cross for their sins to pay for the judgement of God that was coming on them. To trust in Christ alone for salvation. This is not, like it or not bec, not the central focus of the christian church today. It is worldly things, it is secualr things.

In Revelations Christ dictated to John 7 letters to 7 churches. Bible teachers for years have noted the interestingly dead on correlation between those 7 churches and seven phases in church history. The last letter was wrote to the Laodecian church, Paul also wrote a very pointed letter dealing with this church and latter day period we live in, in the book Colossians.

 Anyway, the laodecian church age starts around the beginning of the 20th century and continues until the rapture of the church. Now, Laodecia means, "right of the laity" or something therelike. Or rights of the people in the church, it is pictured therefore as the members of the church-church, not christs church as he is pictured on the outsided knocking to be allowed in.

It is commented on in this letter by Christ as a church period of material wealth and spiritual poverty. Of no more great christian revivals on a mass scale, just on an individual level. THis church age he describes as being blind and in need of eye salve in order to see. THis church is a self deceived church,  a full of pride church and self righteous church where thinking it to be a holy and beautiful church, christ tells them they are a blind, naked and wretched church.

A church age whose telling characteristic is that it questions "HIS WORD" and he (Christ) being the creator. Which if you will look at christianity in the 20th century, the two central issues facing the church, which it as a whole fails miserably in is recognizing God through christ as creator, thanks to the invention of evolution and the compromisers within the church who because they don not understand their own bibles well enough, because their teachers dont as well, compromise with this atheistic religion, which is what it is even if it is called science.

The second failing is that it is a church that questions his word. This church, our church age!!!, doesnt any longer believe they have the word of God. Since the late 1800's but especially since 1900 there have been a hundred "new and improved" versions of the bible. Each supposedly more accurate, yet each contradicting each other, and the King James Bible, which at this point had been around for a few hundred years, now 400 years, (still the king by the way!!!) Each  iof these new versions since 1900 are guilty of two sins that God promises to curse those who commit.

They add and subtract from what he said. If you compare new translations, with the King james you find, and this is because all the new translations give weitht to ancient lines of manuscripts that in the king james translators day were known to be corrupt because of their additions and subtractions which took away and distorted the clear teachings of the bibel as well as destroying the clear system of cross reference system of the bibe through which you could easily study any subject string until it was mutilated by the new translations following old corrupt manuscripts with equal weight as those that were not.

If you look in Genesis chpt 3, you find that when the devil comes to deceive eve he does it by the same strategy, adding and subtracting from the word of god, what god originally told Adam to do, in relation to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He got Eve messed up because she couldnt quote her one verse bible to save her life either, and added her own "private interpretation". and the Devil had her.

It was the devils strategy from beginning. To distort and pervert the word of God and to thereby create doubt and confusion in relation to belief and trust in the word of God, and he's been doing the same strategy ever since, and having a field day at it since the 20th century. THe many translations, with all its various renderings and wordings of what God said creates a pleathora of confusion, as 100 people speaking at once would. What did god actually say, did he say this or did he say that, if you will.

This is what opened the door for the church to be swallowed up by the monkey men revolution, called evolution-thats all mine, but now its yours free of charge!!_its led to the liberal corrupting influence in the church, the humanism, naturalism, and out right paganistic influence having its way upon the church, to where now 100 years later its acceptable in the mainstream to have homosexuality in the clergy, fornication in laity and multitude other out in the open sins. You can go in some churches today and swear there is absolutely no difference between the people inside and those out, in fact, many inside are probably worst!

That is some of why I have commented on bec30, the church being corrupt and watered down. Christ said this last age we live in, was to be a corrupt church as he described in the book of revelations of the church of laodecia, and so it is today. It is a prophetic sign given by God in the Bible, that the end time is imminent. Especially since Israel is a nation again, but thats another matter. I didnt say the church is a joke today, God says it bec30. Its a abject failure and the reason why he's about to pull the plug on it.

TO the individual christian, the single book wrote most for end time christians, especially in the unique trying of our faith times for christians, Paul wrote the book of colossians. Youl notice the cross reference mention of the Laodecia several times within it, its gods way of cluing you into the relevance of it specifically to our church age which is the Church of Laodecia. Id suggest heavily digesting that book, its specifically aimed at christians in our time.

*sigh*  You are simply not listening to what I am saying... I understand where you are coming from, really I do... and I don't think you are wrong.  But as a Quaker I believe that the way you take the message of god is not as important as finding your way there.  If a person is more drawn to god by the idea of compassion, tolerance, and respect for others then why not let them take that path.  There are 66 books in the bible and some stories conflict with others.  What you have to realize is that while the bible was inspired by god, it was written by men, and the books weren't written all at once.  My father is a biblical scholar, he has spent nearly 6 decades studying the bible and has read the bible in both Hebrew and English many times.  I think he said it best when he said: "Imagine the word of god is pure light and man is a prism.  When the pure light of god's words hits the prism it bends ever so slightly into beautiful colors.  It is not the same as it was because the minds of humans can not comprehend the unaltered word of god.  And though many of the truths are timeless, the scriptures are altered to fit the times the author wrote them in... this is why there are passages such as "Slaves obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear."  This passage was used a lot by slave owners before the abolition of slavery as a justification for keeping their slaves.  So I don't agree with everything in the bible word for word, but I agree in the basic principles.

bec30,

your right I apologize for being unneccesaryingly abrasive at times. I understand the concept, some are won not by fear but by compassion, Paul said the same. I was being dogmatic to a degree that was unnecessary, your right about that, God uses many things and approaches to opens men and womens heart to hear him.

I cant agree with you about the Bible, in full at least. There is no way we can comprehend all the word of gOD, because it is so deep, but it is there for us to understand. It is Gods letter to us, he wants us to know it, in order that we may know him and how have fellowship with him and with each other. IT IS CALLED THE MIND OF CHRIST, BUT IN WRITTEN FORM. The bible is the very mind of GOD revealed to us.

The verse you use, "slaves obey..etc.." does have intentional practical use even for today, it was worded the way it was then because in the Roman world, there was a good chance that you were a slave. Dont kid yourself, we still are slaves to the grind, thats why they call it that, or slaves to our bill or however you want to word it instead of slave. But the application today is clear,,it tells us to do our job, and do it unto the lord, and to not do it only  when the boss is watching.

Back 'nBlack,

Thanks for understanding.  I have always been attracted to the compassion of the scriptures, and that is the message I take from it.  I think perhaps we can agree to disagree on our interpretation of the scripture.

the media doesnt hide juicy relations

So apparently Sunday night it is coming out.

the media isn't biased

No offence but...hahahahahaha

won't comment on the rest as I am independent, and all the partisanism instead of a joint effort to do what is right for the people makes my stomach turn.  Anti-Christ (a very misused word) means "in place of Christ" not "against Christ"  and fits the discription of almost every government in His-story.  There was a part of Davids reign and part of Solomons rein that was Christlike and the time of the judges seemed to be so.     

what did they do for you when they controlled every branch of government? did they attack roe vs wade  at all? banned gay marrage at a federal level?m any of that crap they always promise?

No they didn't. They didn't do a damned thing good. They used the terrorist attacks to distract us from their broken promises. They had no one to answer to. They were a failure.

That's the danger of a one party controlled legislature and executive office. I don't think it's healthy for us. It's like Coke without Pepsi. A monopoly. I don't like a few things about McCain. And I like a few things about Obama. But I'm worried about Obama leading a Democrat controlled congress. It's a free check to do more of what Bush and the GOP did: Screw us.

The furthest left you can go meets at the same place as the furthest right.

Joulesbeef,

Haha,,exactly, the Republicans use the religious right by making made for t.v. soundbyte proclamations about moralty, God, and country to stir our hearts just long enough to get us to vote for them. No doubt, thats their angle.

Problem is, the Democrats use the "plight"-im trying to not laugh-,,of the minority, of the poor, of the enviromentalist, of the gay, of the Union working man, of whatever else and their "cause"-still trying to not explode with laughter-, to make you believe that they care about your problems and they will take care of you if elected. The government will take care of you all, fix all your problems, read you a bed time story and tuck you in before bedtime, whispering sweet nothings in your ear.

Scam. Please be smarter than that. Whoever it is that any of you think is going to get in there and represent you, grow up. It will not happen, you dont have the financial lobbying ability, or rather bribery abilities I should say.

JB @3 I hear you on that. The Republicans have really only paid attention to Obama in the last couple of months.

But Obama has been on the campaign trail for over 20 months already and EVERY story has been thrown up at him, including his familial connections overseas. So there will not be anything 'new' in that show tomorrow. Just dredged up and debunked old stuff.

It is only 'new' to the republicans. But had they reviewed the media archives and the web they would have found it out themselves. Instead they will rely on this story tomorrow.

Please add Keating 5 and the money trail of John and Cindy they are the ones with the money that could corrupt Barack than the other way around.

Bob, Bob, Bob,

! Three Democrats (Cranston, DeConcini, Riegle) were reprimanded, one Democrat (Glenn) was exonerated, and the only Republican (McCain) was exonerated. Keating went to jail! In fact, the Special Counsel (Bennett, who later became Clinton's lawyer) to the Ethics Panel investigation said he found nothing during the investigation to impugn McCain's integrity.

Straw dog! You all keep playing the same record and it is broken!

He was admonished for using poor judgement by the Senate that is not exoneration by any means, trips to the Bahamas for him and his family and babysitter they were best friends the closest of all the Senators and you believe that he is squeaky clean on this affair?????? If you use your own mindset fair and balanced on Obama you would have to come to the same conclusion with McCain. We will never know the full extent of how much Cindy got from the deal but we do know she was more involved than John himself.

If you want to throw around dirty associations there are plenty to go around.  Obama has his William Ayers, to which you can hold up McCain's friend and campaign sponsor G. Gordon Liddy or McCain's spot on the advisory board of The U.S. council for World Freedom.  Obama has his Rezko (and he gave the money donated by Rezko to charity), McCain has his Keeting five.  Obama has his acorn, McCain's campaign has been sending recently moved Obama supporters absentee ballots, with the return address of their former county clerks office... (which if used, will negate that person's vote).  Obama has the ever-inappropriate Rev. Wright.  Sarah Palin has her scary witch hunter Thomas Muthee.  This not even mentioning all of the dirt on Sarah Palin.  The point I'm trying to make is that if you dig deep enough you can find enough dirt to bury anyone... sooooo I prefer to make my decision on the soundness of each candidates plan and whether or not it will help pull our country out of this financial and educational crisis (I say educational crisis because American students rank abysmally low in comparison to students from other industrialized nations) and back onto the right track.  I have studied the issues and looked into what the candidates promise and for me the answer is clearly to make Obama our next president.

Bec,

Rashid Khalidi

Pfleger (Father Michael)

Odinga

Klonsky (Mike)

James Cone

Johnson (Jim)

Graham-Felsen (Sam)

Frank Marshall Davis

Al-Mansour (Dr. Khalid )  

Franklin Raines

Tony Rezko

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Minister Luise Farrakhan

Bernardine Dohrn

William Ayers

Acorn

New Party

Chris Dodd

Barney Frank

Charles Schumer

You got any more the list is pretty long?

I'm not interested in the flimsy half truths that you place before me.  Just like I don't care about McCain and his list of dirty associations like Charlie Black, Gordon Liddy, Sarah Palin, Vicky Iseman, the word of McCain's fellow POW Dennis Johnson, Jerry Falwell, as well as the ones I already mentioned.  Just in case you didn't hear me before...

I prefer to make my decision on the soundness of each candidates plan and whether or not it will help pull our country out of this financial and educational crisis (I say educational crisis because American students rank abysmally low in comparison to students from other industrialized nations) and back onto the right track.  I have studied the issues and looked into what the candidates promise and for me the answer is clearly to make Obama our next president.

This gossip mongering is getting ridiculous, it serves no purpose except to cloud the issues.  I think that if a person has to resort to constantly tearing down their opponent, that means that their campaign is too weak to stand on issues alone.  I certainly won't vote for someone who bases their whole argument for being president on gossip and circumstantial evidence.

I do know I have seen a huge chunk of my net worth disappear this past two weeks. I would like to know what the facs are just as much as the next guy.

Get ready for more destruction Charlie because of Obama’s @!$%#ed economic policies because its people like you and that damn Christian Right who are going to put him in office. Obama is not the anti-Christ or any of that crap. He’s a smart, calculating, ambitious and focused politician, but with a socialists economic policies.

McCain could have won this election but for Palin. Me and lots of people I know will have to vote for Obama because you’d have to be a fool to let Palin near the White House. His first two choices for VP were Joe Lieberman or Tom Rich, but the God dam pro-lifers that run the Republican Party said no. So you just keep letting your stupid religious convictions run the country and you’ll discover what the Middle Ages was all about when the Catholic Church ran everything.

But are we not all guilty of it, when it suits our purpose?

Charlie,

Yes... I suppose we are, at that....  But I must say I try to be a big proponent of the hippie phrase: "can't we all just get along?" Though I admit I sometimes fail. :)

Laura? In the scale of things it is just not that important to resort to demeaning statements!

Comparing Mr. Hannity to a real journalist is silly.

Stick my neck out?  I don't get it.

Son,

I believe he wanted you to say some other msm is fairer and balanced like Msnbc or NBC, CBS, ABC.

I admit (as they do) that FOX is right of center but if you had said any of the list above is centered or in the pocket of the republicans show how far to the left you would be.

I see, that would seem to give the lie to Charlie's statement that he has no dog in this fight, wouldn't it?

He may have been looking for your bias which does not preclude his independence!

My bias?

FOX and affiliates are right wing... all the NBC affiliates are left wing... and CNN seems to be somewhat in between the two.  It is the least biased station I have been able to find.

I could do person to person interviews to support any view imaginable.  Anecdotal evidence is just that.  Why don't we all find bible verses to prove whatever we want.  There's not a large degree of difference.

only to be diverted slightly when Rev. Wright's venom was aired over and over. As we now see, the public didn't care one iota.

IMO I believe this speaks to "substance" versus "style". This election will go to the Democrats this cycle for one simple reason: they are offering a slate of real issues, and the pubs are offering a slate of moral issues.

And before you cry "heathen! - Moral issues are real too!", understand that in the face of the war, the 10.2 TRILLION dollar debt, rising poverty, inflation and energy prices, global warming, in my book, moral issues don't amount to a hill of beans, but them, my opinion is that government has no business regulating moral issues anyway.

The ironic thing is, neither side is changing much from their last election strategies: last time, if you recall the 'pubs were dealing in fear and "he's not really a war hero...", and the 'crats were selling "end the deficits".

The difference now? IMO it's that Americans understand that the leaky roof doesn't matter much when there's a wolf at the door.

As for Hannity and his ilk, the man has no soul, no integrity, but a nice fat paycheck. I believe as little as possible that any media outlet reports; anything important is always cross verified with an opposing source. I wouldn't trust a weather report from Faux news.

While we're at this, why don't we chat about Mr. McCain's ties with the Keating Five, and the fact that his wife destroyed a nonprofit medical group so she could abuse painkillers.  Or the fact that Mr. McCain's campaign staff is essentially composed of lobbyists.  What a maverick he is.

change, change, yes we can, change change, your racist, change, change, yes we can......it just doesn't matter to these people....they just don't care.....it's just..change, yes we can, your racist...change...lol

Son:

Three Democrats (Cranston, DeConcini, Riegle) were reprimanded, one Democrat (Glenn) was exonerated, and the only Republican (McCain) was exonerated. Keating went to jail! In fact, the Special Counsel (Bennett, who later became Clinton's lawyer) to the Ethics Panel investigation said he found nothing during the investigation to impugn McCain's integrity.

Straw dog! You all keep playing the same record and it is broken!

Thank you Charlie for your honesty and I think you have again demonstrated what a wonderful human being your are thank you my friend.

I'll try to be in on it Monday I will be in New Mexico next week the Doc wants be to stay around another few days, I told him at my age I'd like to do what I want to do those few days, but I'll follow his advice for the great-great grand child we are expecting around the lords birthday 24 to 27 of December. That is very important to me. God bless you Charlie take care.

Barack will probably be our President

Say it ain' so Charlie!  What's left of America will be unrecognizable.    He is an un- truthful person and IMO is very bad for this country.

Oh my gosh, a politician that's untruthful?  That's never happened, we must stone him!!

Barack will probably be our President

let me fix this for you..

Barack will probably be our President.

source

keep smirking, you'll need this defense system if bo gets in office.

proud american-

im not sure where you might be detecting a smirk..

its more like a glimmer of hope.

if you believe that the last 8 years have been good for america,  i feel sorry for you, as it is obvious that you just have not been paying attention.

Proud American, I have seen no convincing reason to vote for Obama, and actually share the concern of you and others who simply don't really know who Obama is, what he's all about, what his accomplishments and associations tell us about him, and how fit he is to be Commander-in-Chief. I have considerable rerservations about Obama, and lesser concerns about McCain. Right now I am slightly leaning towards what I currently see as a choice between the lesser of two evils, though I like Palin alot, and like Biden as well. I hope to really get a better perspective on Obama- to date, I just don't get a good fix on who he really is.

ts,

I didn't say the last years have been good, did you even read my comment?  I said what is left of this country...  Yeah I love how anyone who disagrees with your position is uninformed and not paying attention. 

Laura, there is a thing here on NV called a code of honor.  I don't know what about my comment would cause you to personally attack me, and last time I looked at my birth certificate  it said I was born here so how does that make NO American?  Because my opinion differs from yours?  Oh I see now.  Way to influence people and win friends.

wkb,

share the concern of you and others who simply don't really know who Obama is, what he's all about, what his accomplishments and associations tell us about him, and how fit he is to be Commander-in-Chief.

I am with you on that.  

I had to go back and look at the title of the article because I thought for a minute I was on RB thread about the obama-thugocracy for a minute. :o)

actually i did read your comment..  not that there was much to it..

but then again it appears that you think that "sciences points to god" and 

"...Love Cotton Candy! It fascinates me. I am clueless how spinning sugar becomes what it is?"

from reading your column, your comments do not surprize me one bit..  you just keep on collecting your bunnies and thinking nice thoughts about sarah failin..

and please put me on your ignore list..

thanks

ts,  Hmm, should I be concerned that you could be a stalker?  You seem to have spent alot of your time checking out my column, yet all I know of you is your username. 

don't flatter yourself as im not at all interested in "stalking" a right winger..

i like my women on the smarter side of the fence.

i took 5 minutes and read your column..  if that to you is stalking, then i suggest you get some professional help to rid you of that paranoia..  ive been here on newsvine since the beta days so you can learn lots about me from my column. 

have a nice day.

Don't flatter yourself either as I am not interested in even your username, so I have no reason to check out your column, it was just a comment that I had never seen your name around.    Something about my name or comment caused you to go looking for more info.   

 like my women on the smarter side of the fence.

You mean starry eyed and agree with all your opinions kind.   Actually I'll bet you actually have very little room in your life for anyone as you seem to be much too in love with yourself to have anything left to share.

ive been here on newsvine since the beta days

You know all about the CoH then.  You have a nice day too.

Laura and ts, are those comments really necessary?  I don't understand why you have to put people down to get your oppinion across.  This presidential race is producing some very strong emotions and I'm a little worried about the amount of animosity shown by both sides.  We can disagree without being rude or intolerant of eachother, because like it or not we are all going to have to unite under whoever wins and work together to help make this country strong again.  If you harbor hate for your neighbor you will make it just that much harder for us to come together to fix what is wrong.

Just remember Anne Colter Michelle Malkin Laura Ingram they are paid political lady's of the night for the Republican Party and have been shot down in a number of circles this political season they all including Hannity all were against McCain they never trusted him and with this new Mortgage Bailout of McCains that would have penalized the banks and McCain went back and changed it to penalize us the tax payers what bunk. They are going to like him less. The only one who has stayed true so far is James Dobson he is still holding out and God Bless him for that.

God bless America

This is so presumptuous, I wish you Christians would just keep your God out of this. How would you feel if I was a devil worshiper (which I have a right to be) and kept saying, “may the Devil bless America”?

Ezeques,

Your puerile argument is moot! No one has impugned your right to to prey to beelzebub and there are plenty of people who will, are and have fought for your right to do it.

If you are not from here...............................your on your own!

Charlie,

You don't seem to be able to distinguish "fact" from outright lies....yet you speak of the Lord and the Lord's day?  Nonsense!

Laura,

Obviously Charlie is ignoring your obvious anti-religious bias. But I will bite.

What lies????

WhackedMan,

One thing I thought about regarding Obama: He hung around with black nationals and other radicals and we all know what his middle name is, YET he still did not rush and convert to radical Islam (like Malcolm X did).

I have to give him credit for that.

 The credit would be for being politically expedient. (Politically expedient, definition: Never admit who you are or what you believe if it will not allow you to be elected!)

Charlie what is wrong with the Lords Day by Laura I always thought Sunday was a traditional day of worship but everyday is the Lords Day but Sunday was a day of rest and I fought for years under the blue laws to keep places closed now everyone is open on Sunday and Sunday isn't really the same anymore unless you make it what you want.

But, just throwing around inflammatory statements does more to ill inform people than it does to bring light to the issue.

I didn't throw around anything. I made a logical conclusion. I wrote that if Obama was an anti-american extremist, he might have joined a radical Islamic group or terrorist organization. But he didn't.

It is interesting how these media icon types are more interested in their agenda than the truth. I always find it amazing how they can picture the other candidate as so awful, but refuse to turn the same spotlight on their own guy. Both sides do this almost exclusively, its just pathetic. Actually, the only one of these media talking head type personality's that I enjoy that attempts objectivity is Bill O Riley.

I had a friend who was a crack head. Phew! Im glad im not running for President. Seriously, the game is obvious from both sides. Sling as much mud as possible and see what sticks. Both are very very very flawed candidates.

Both are very very flawed candidates.

You sure said a mouth full there.  I keep saying...I really haven't decided who I am voting for yet....but either way I go I know I will be fighting the impulse to throw up in the voting booth!

Giuliani Is who you would mean, by that standard you are a loser! In the game of course. The educated game!

Well, if that's the game you want to play then, let's keep going: Rudy Guiliani is a close friend of Monsignor Alan Placa (whom was also Sean Hannity's teacher - check your facts), an accused child molester. Rudy Guiliani is a close friend, campaign advisor and spokesman for John McCain. In the guilt-by-association game, John McCain is thus a child molester.

Thanks for playing..!

CSM,

I, personally, am voting for the Supreme Court this year.

Marno,

accused child molester

Marno did you stop beating your life partner yet? Yes or No?

Anyone can be accused! That does not make the acusation true untill prove either way, isn't that what is being done trying to prove either way.

As a side if "that one" (Don't like using his name because I may be called racist) is proved to be a ultra-socialist as in member of the "New Party" and his relationship with Ayers is more than "just someone in my neighborhood" will it make any difference in your vote?

The only difference between Ayers and Timothy McVeigh is Timothy did what Ayers wanted and tried to do!

Anyone can be accused! That does not make the acusation true...

DD, that's the most enlightened thing you've written so far!

Charlie, you missed the point. It's only a "fact" in the guilt-by-association game (meaning it is most likely completely without merit) that Sean Hannity and his ilk are intent on playing. One need not be particularly smart or clever to play; one only need be very gullible.

I, personally, am voting for the Supreme Court this year.

Ellie, since I've read your posts and IMO find you fair and intelligent, I wanted to post this comment before some snide person trys to belittle you for it, and post that I believe you meant

You are voting because there are as many as 3 seats on the court that the next president most likely will nominate for.

In what way?

elliephat,

God no, dont vote for the supreme court! They are responsible, in large part, for the dismantling of our constitution as a valid legal document that ensures us protection from our government, not to mention rending trivial much of the spirit of the constitution by twisting and finding exception with many laws that are in line with the spirit of the constitution, declaring them unconstitutional. The law and courtrooms are the backdoor through which those who would subvert and destroy what is america go through, and at the top of that garbage heap is the supreme court. Just saying.

Back N'Black74,

Agreed.  So I'm voting for the candidate I feel will do the least additional damage to the court.

They are responsible, in large part, for the dismantling of our constitution as a valid legal document that ensures us protection from our government, not to mention rending trivial much of the spirit of the constitution by twisting and finding exception with many laws that are in line with the spirit of the constitution, declaring them unconstitutional.

I must take exception with this. Every time I hear one side or another decry "activist judges", of course it's always that those damn judges made some decision they don't agree with. They're fine with "judicial activism" if it's in line with their personal beliefs. I will stick my neck out as say that the number of people who truly have a problem with "judicial activism" for its own sake is about equal to the number of truly honest politicians.

The fact of the matter is Judges are doing their job when they interpret laws... that's the purpose of the third branch of government. They are meant to be a check, which means they are supposed to piss people off at least as much as the other two branches =).

Finally, whether or not a law "is in line with the spirit of the constitution" is totally irrelevant. A law is either clear by a plain reading, or it is in all sorts of trouble, ESPECIALLY if it remains in force. Ambiguity has no place in a law, and yet because congress has so many incentives to make laws vague, ambiguity is what we get.

You may recall the reason that judges are elected for such long terms: because they must live ahead of our time, and often the decisions they make are unpopular in the current day. But if you look back in history, you will find that most (certainly not all) decisions that were unpopular at the time have been vindicated by history.

Azzix,

Are you a constructionist?

I am a common-senseist. I don't much care if the result of that common sense can be construed as strict constructionism or judicial activism.

I adhere to no ideology, belief or dogma that no longer fits reality, no matter how much I may have previously cherished it.

azzix,

Could you possibly be any more naive? I know I shouldnt resort to calling someone a name, but its a an irresistable urge I must give in to when someone says something as insane as what you just said. I just cant help it. Where to begin, I want to keep it short?

 whether or not a law "is in line with the spirit of the constitution" is totally irrelevant.-

your words, lets see. Any good law is wrote with a certain spirit or intent, otherwise there would be no  law made. Laws against murder are there to seek to withstrain people from murdering other people, and to protect those against those who would be murdered by punishment. THat very broad, but the point is the same regardless of the law.Nor, is it true that judges ruled on certain laws because they were intentionally unclear.

What really happens, is some idiot lawyer is able to fine technical exception to a law and present it in such a way that the judge rules by the letter of the law, not the spirit. It is done everyday in courtrooms where the guilty are set free under the heading of reasonable doubt.

My God, how can people be so blind. I swear it completely baffles me the degree to which people seem unable to think things through, and then call your sell some governed by your common sense.

Yes, your right. Its because our judges are doing such a goood job and living ahead of their times, as you say, or whatever, is the reason why laws are so easily ruled against, overruled that protect the innocent and guilty freed or not made to pay for crimes to the fullest extent of the law. You must be on the payroll of some judge, or work for one, to say something so biased. I just really dont get it.

Azzix,

I adhere to ideology, belief or dogma that no longer fits reality

By a lot of your post I can see that this statment is true!

Donnie,Do you think that by intentionally misquoting me to change my words will buy you any points with those that read your posts? Do you really think that people here are so stupid that they cannot look at the original post and see your lie? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by attacking me, but that's ok.

I just ask that if you attack, please attack my ideas, and do it with your words and ideas and not attribute quotes around words I didn't say. You make it clear you disagree "with some of my posts", and that's fine... but if the best you can do to rebut my ideas if to lie about them, that makes me feel pretty good about them.

Back,I'm not sure what I said that can be construed as naive, since my argument is for neither judicial activism or strict constructionism, but common sense. I am simply saying that judges have common sense, let's let them use it and trust that that aren't s-s-s-stupid.

Further, it isn't clear in your post if you are railing for or against constructionism. In one part you talk about an idiot lawyer somehow forcing a judge to adhere to the letter of a badly written law, but on the other you talk about how easily laws are ruled against, protecting the guilty over the innocent. Please clarify your position.

Do you honestly believe there are judges out that that seek to intentionally let the guilty go free? I don't know any judges, but if I put myself into those shoes it would be a terrible duty to have to perform.

There are those that would argue that the rule of law is more important than any one application of it. I'm not a judge because I would never want to be duty bound to make a ruling that prevents one thousand misapplications of law at the cost of one gross injustice. (That and I don't like lawyers =).

azzix,

I see what your saying, I guess all that im saying is that there are many judges in this country, not all nor even majority, but many- Many who have an agenda. I believe that agenda is to strengthen the courts power and also interpret law through the lense of an ultra liberal ideology.

Unfortunately you are right regarding the words racism being use so often . However I must admit to you that if it wasn't so much racism mentioned on this board African Americans like myself wouldn't have to mention anything regarding the matter. I prefer  to discuss positive issues ,specially when it comes to political science and sociology - unfortunately white America will not let go !

marvelousMarvin,

I was cheering you on till your last phrase.  Why do insist on generalizing against white people?  I am not one bit concerned about Obama's race, but his policies and his admirerers' policies.   But that is OT.  We can talk again after the show.

While racism, like Hitler references, is used too frequently as a crutch, to deny that it is part of this election would be ridiculous.  It is also not just about Barack Obama having a darker skin color than other presidential hopefuls.  It is racism to say you are afraid of an Arab or Muslim president, too.  Asking if Obama will paint the White House black is racism.  Making a big deal out of a Semitic middle name is racism.  Carrying a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker (and saying his name is Hussein) is racism.  All of these things have been raised by McCain supporters, therefore racism is most definitely a part of this campaign.

And it seems that some of this nonsense is coming out of McCain campaign headquarters, too. http://mistyshangrila.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/12/1989770-mccain-campaign-says-obama-is-an-arab

Destiny's Child,

It is racism to say you are afraid of an Arab or Muslim president, too.

  How is being afraid (adjective) racist or racism? It is not, again you are using it to much. It may be uninformed, uneducated or just plain stupid if the person you are talking about is not arab or muslim but it is not racist.

  I and all of the people excluding the muslims I know would and should be very afraid of a muslim president. Would you want a muslim for president? Do you know what muslims practice in reguards to non-muslims in societys they control? I do not think "that one" is a muslim. I am concerned with his policy's concerning some of the thing's he has said about them though.

How is being afraid (adjective) racist or racism? It is not, again you are using it to much. It may be uninformed, uneducated or just plain stupid if the person you are talking about is not arab or muslim but it is not racist.

It is racist because of the reason for the fear: that this person will harm me because of his race... or if his religion is the reason for the fear, it's not racism, but simple bigotry. Neither has any place in this or any other election.

I and all of the people excluding the muslims I know would and should be very afraid of a muslim president.

Your generalizing ("...all of the people...") and predictions of the future ("...should be very afraid...") are killing your credibility.

Would you want a muslim for president?

Simply put, a person's religious beliefs have zero, repeat NO bearing on my vote for him or her. A Muslim president would be just fine in my book.

Do you know what muslims practice in reguards to non-muslims in societys they control?

Having studied the subject of religious persecution, yes I do. The answer might suprise you. Search Wikipedia for "Persecution of Muslims", and then "Persecution of Christians". Compare the two articles, and then tell me if you can honestly say that one is any better or worse than the other.

In any event, I find your asking of that question to be fear mongering. Our constitutional checks and balances, to say nothing of the other two branches of government will make the sort of "nightmares" you would have people in fear of simply impossible to achieve.

I have a pretty good imagination, but I'm at a loss to come up with any scenario that would make it politically possible for BO to say something to the effect of "It's a national security crisis! Terrorists have attacked! Islam must now become our state religion" and not be laughed out of town.

...but you're the one pushing that brand of fear... so what scenario can your imagination come up with that would stop me from laughing that statement out of this debate?

Would you want a muslim for president?

I'd rather not have anyone who believes in myth as president.

Its really unfortunate that our country is so turned against the God and religion that was firmly in place when this country was won against true oppression from the country of England, not phantom menaces some imagine when things dont go the way they should and they then cry racism.
No not racism, its called lifes not fair. Its not to me, and it aint to you. Quit using the race card like some pacifiar and trying to insist this race for president is about racism if white people dont want to vote for Obama. I wont vote for him not because of his color,  but because he is a socialist. I dont want a socialist who is a close cousin to an outright communist, running this country. I dont give a crap about his color, I have a problem with his ideas.
Second, all these, I dont care if he's a muslim, I vote for him as president. Why would I do that? This is not a muslim country. Try going to some muslim country, and tell people your a christian and are running for office. There isnt even this polite disagreement we have in this county. THey likely will imprison you and even put you to death. That is what this religion breeds, its hostility towards others not muslim, considering all outsiders as infidels and subject to death if they will not convert. Hell no, I dont want a Muslim as a president.
Discrimination, sometimes is good. It meens simply the ability to decide between things and on basis of that, prefer one over the other. I see muslims blowing up buildings, airplanes, each other, and themselves. Their countrys leaders say death to america, death to israel, and vioence follows it wherever it goes. Screw being polite, I do not want a damn muslim as a president, and it does matter to me if he has muslim ties, deal with it, you gentle sissys who go around saying that you do not have a problem with Islam, just the radical variety. Please, its history only shows one variety, the radical, dont be so stupid.
It really is unfortunate that most americans today have totally lost their ability to discriminate between what is good and what is not. To the ignorant, I am not talking of anything racial when I say discriminate, just the ability to decide on whats right by critically thinking on something.
Im sure this will get a lot of hate response, bring it on you sissies!

Back,

Most of us realize that there are different definitions of the work "discriminate". As you will see, I'll use both versions in this post.

Please, its history only shows one variety, the radical, dont be so stupid.

Is this the same person that accused me of being naive? You need only to read history to see this is patently untrue. This is an example of you discriminating against all people of a given religion -- the "bad" kind of discrimination. The kind specifically prohibited in our constitution.

You are tarring all of Islam with the same brush, when only Iran calls "death to America"; a country that IMO has taken a relatively benign worship model (intercessionary; something like how Catholics pray to Saints) and turned it into a mechanism of power and control. ("We MUST pray to the Imam to be heard by God").

My point is, you decry our loss as Americans of some ability to discriminate (this is the "good" kind of discrimination)... and yet you show no ability to see that a billion Muslims will have a billion different points of view. Some of these are hostile, some are friendly, some a mix. So what... how is that different than how people in secular France might feel about us? I guarantee you that some will be hostile, some will be friendly.

There are countries that are intolerant of non-muslims, and there are countries with an admirable track record of protecting minority rights. If you read your history, up until very recently most Muslim countries proudly protected minority religions as their duty. You need look no further than Ireland if you want an example of Christians blowing each other up. Unfortunately, Allah does not seem to have a monopoly on zealotry.

azzix,

I having nothing against anyone of any religious background, including Islam. All world religions, because of the fallen nature of man, lead to war and death and damnation. I understand all Muslims do not think alike.

However, what you fail to factor is something I also understand, it is  that the undercurrents of any religion or idealogy that becomes the dominant one, the dominant current, is not the one that all of that idealogy would adhere to. Example, most Germans were not in favor of Naziism in world war two, yet it prevailed.

The same is true of Islamic extremeism. It has to do with agression. If the peaceful variety of Islam would aggressively seek to extinguish militant Islam, then it would prevail, but that isnt the case, which is the reason why Militant Islam will be the variety that will prevail predominately, the other is passive.

That is why, not some racist nonsense like charlie the author said, I do no want someone who is a muslim to be president. I dont want any encouragement of this religion in this country.

It is leaning more and more towards extremism "these days" and anti semitic to boot, I dont want this ideology encouraged in our country. I believe in all being able to worship without fear of repurcussion. That is what america is all about. But that has to be balanced with the safety and well being of our country as a whole.

If members of that religion are more and more leaning towards extremism that resort to violence and killing in order to promote and silence those who oppose their religion, then their freedom in the interest of other americans, needs to be monitored more closely. It is because of this trend, I do not want any encouragement of Islam in this country, it has led to violence worldwide where ever it is prodominant today, and I do not want that for my country. 

Lastly,assix, I have read several history's about Islam. It is a religion that spread originally through the sword. Convert or die. It is a fact of history. It never has lost that aspect about it because it was from the very beginning a religion that spreads itself through violence, though some once the wave of violence has passed through do not believe in violence, has nothing to do with the fact that it is a religion that spreads through the sword and incites violence.

Example, most Germans were not in favor of Naziism in world war two, yet it prevailed.

While this is true, it has little to do with the agressive nature of the Nazi party, and much to do with the economic conditions Germany was experiencing at the time and the promises that were made by the party.

Even then, however, the Germans that voted for the Nazis has no idea the vote would lead to a war.

It is because of this trend, I do not want any encouragement of Islam in this country, it has led to violence worldwide where ever it is prodominant today, and I do not want that for my country.

There are those who would argue from observing the last eight years that having a Fundamentalist Christian in the White House has led to violence worldwide. My point is, is that if you pick up that brush you will be tarred with it.

Also, please explain what this thread (Obama facts) has to do with encouraging Islam in this country? Please do not reply with the same tired, thoroughly debunked rumor that he is somehow a Muslim.

All major religions have spread through violence in their ascendancy... that is also a fact of history. But let's add the other actors to the scene as well... the States. The list of States that have been founded without bloodshed is breathtakingly short. This leads me to state that the true issue you speak of is the violence that comes from power struggles, and has nothing to do with religion -- except when those power struggles occur within religious institutions.

An honest, plain reading of history does not justify your fear of Islam... or does not justify your lack of fear of Christianity.

Finally, let's for the sake of discussion take your premise that electing a Muslim might somehow encourage violence in this country. I find it completely implausible that all of a sudden all of the Muslims that have lived here peacefully for decades would suddenly have an irresistable urge to start hunting infidels.

If we are not strong enough as a country and a society to resist this then we're screwed anyway. It would be remarkably similar  to how Constantine used the rise of Christianity to stablize Rome during its descent.

Personally, I'm more afraid of people who exhibit (IMO) irrational fears and let those fears intrude on public policy discussions.

azzix,

All your points are very good, well thought out, reasonable and well presented. I honestly was worried, because I was a little sloppy with how I presented what I said that it would automatically be taken past the point where I hoped it would be, and I would be "stoned", so to say.

Though I suppose we are not agreeing on some points I cannot disagree with you on any point of your last post. Just a few things id like to acknowledge and add a point or two.

The ww2 German Nazi reference I made was intentional. Islamic fundamentalism is the 21st century naziism. Its leaders openly profess a fondness and duplication of much of Nazi idealism, not a well known fact but easily verified. Its also rising to prominence for much the same reasons.

While its true economic woes were to blame for the rise of Nazism in Germany as it likewise is a reason for the rise for Islamic Fundamentalism, its a very complex issue with many dynamics, but interestingly parallel ones.

Two huge ones were the subjugation of them by foreign powers following ww1, the Germans were humiliated and had their noses rubbed in it by the victors (france, england) leading to pent up hostility to go along with severe economic woes. This also is the case with the rise of militant Islam. Modern day Islam countries were mostly colony's or territories of various European powers until after ww2's conclusion and taken advantage of as a vassal state to the benefit of their European overlord masters.

The other, which pertains most to our discussion is the passivity towards Nazi aggressiveness in Germany, once it started to rear its head, by European and American countries. Wrongly believing that appeasement will lead to pacification of what was starting to be recognized as the Nazi threat to Europe, as Hitler made more and more aggressive and bold violations of the treaty of Versaillle. When they should have struck hard, they negotiated and sought appeasement while Hitler armed Germany to the teeth. World War 2 and 10's of millons of deaths is what followed.

The horror of that time is fast fading as that generation passes away, and the same mistake is being made today in regards to Islamic extremism. The U.N. and the U.S. is negotiating not dictating by force as it should to these rogue states like Iran with terrorist ties and nuclear ambitions. The reason is simple, the same as it was with Hitler. Negotiation and appeasement to an aggressor is like waving a red flag to a bull. The aggressor is only encouraged to do more, as the act of negotiation and appeasement is seen as weakness

This I just laid out to get to this. My main problem with Barack Obama for president and why I mentioned not encouraging Islam in this country is this. Barack Obama by saying that he would sit down face to face with Irans president is showing the same weak kneed faulty judgement that was shown with Hitler.

 These aggressor types are like rabid dogs, and as rabid dogs, they should be dealt with accordingly and be put down, destroyed,not negotiated with. THat is the only language those of that posture understand. Barack Obama does not seem to  understand that, and his blundering in this arena will encourage those Islamic militants abroad and at home to rally even more against us.

 This is what I mean by saying that I believe that Barack Obama in the white house will lead to further encouragement of Islamic fundamentalist against the United States. They will see his desire for diplomacy and what we in the west think of as reasonableness, as weakness, and as the aggressor will seek to exploit it, as Hitler did.

This same reason is why I said that I do not want a Muslim for president. He would naturally be more lenient in his dealings with  what he perceives as his brethren because of like faith, and likewise would lead to the same results. Remember asking peace of an aggressor is like waving the red flag in front of a bull.

As to whether Obama is muslim or not, I wasnt saying he was and I cant say I know one way or the other. Someone else mentioned it, Ive heard the rumour and counter rumours before as have you and doubt the validity of it all but thought id comment on the point of whether I believed it a good idea in context of history today, to have a muslim president in the whitehouse. To which I do not for the above mentioned reasons.

As to your point about a christian President as George W. I dunno, maybe he is a christian. I think he isnt very well versed in the Bible if he is. That being the case, he isnt a good example of having a Christian for a president.

More id like to say, but if went on too long as it is.

Its leaders openly profess a fondness and duplication of much of Nazi idealism, not a well known fact but easily verified. Its also rising to prominence for much the same reasons.

I see a lot of the jingoism you speak of in many leaders, only some of which are religious leaders, and only some of which are Islamic religous leaders. I agree that is it troublesome.

What I don't have a handle on is what is the ratio of christian/islamic/secular these people who spew hate as a mechanism to grab power. I can't conclusively say that the percentage of Islamic loonies is higher than the percentage of secular or Christian loonies.

Two huge ones were the subjugation of them by foreign powers following ww1, the Germans were humiliated and had their noses rubbed in it by the victors (france, england) leading to pent up hostility to go along with severe economic woes. This also is the case with the rise of militant Islam. Modern day Islam countries were mostly colony's or territories of various European powers until after ww2's conclusion and taken advantage of as a vassal state to the benefit of their European overlord masters.

An excellent point! People who have been repressed get angry and at some point in time that anger explodes unless something is done to address their grievances. History is replete with examples of this - including our own American Revoloution.

Negotiation and appeasement to an aggressor is like waving a red flag to a bull.

As a kid I learned this firsthand. I had a bully who picked on me relentlessly until the day he pissed me off enough to deck him. He still kicked my ass... but he picked on other kids from that day on.

Barack Obama by saying that he would sit down face to face with Irans president is showing the same weak kneed faulty judgement that was shown with Hitler.

If I thought BO's position of sitting down without condition were in fact appeasement, I would oppose it. I happen to agree with his position in that there is no harm in listening to their stated grievances. If we're to be honest, the U.S. hasn't been a true friend to anything except the dollar... and that's fine for what it is. Countries don't have friends, they have interests. The problem is that America is pretty loud about our high minded ideals, and all too often we sell out those ideals for dollars.

So, sit down with 'em. I don't believe this "legitimizes" people like Ahmadinejad.... they are already "legitimate" in their own people's eyes. What is there to lose? Be nice until it's time to not be nice. Bend over backward to listen to every rediculous demand, so that way, if and when the time comes to "put them down like rabid dogs", no reasonable person will possess a doubt that they were in fact, rabid dogs.

Ideally they aren't rabid dogs, but just normal people indignant at the supposed, alleged injustices perpetrated on them by The Great Satan.

This same reason is why I said that I do not want a Muslim for president. He would naturally be more lenient in his dealings with  what he perceives as his brethren because of like faith, and likewise would lead to the same results

This is possible, and I can't discount it. But IMO he is just as likely to cut them less slack because he would easily be able to see when they are disguising secular ambitions in religious arguments. It really comes down to the level of true honesty this leader possesses. It could go either way.

A sponsor in a 12 step program does not cut the addict any slack for backsliding just because they were once there. Honesty is honesty.

By the way, thanks for your honesty. As long as you demonstrate it, don't worry about the clarity of your writing - I'll give it an honest read.

You know something EMG...your right.  But also know that I feel the same way about those who blindly follow McCain/Palin the same way. 

I am wrong to generalize the two groups, as I feel certain each individual has their own personal reasons for supporting one over the other.  But my posts are based on observations.

emg, I have a hard time believing any of what you just said. Especially the comment about foreign policy. All McCain wants is victory in Iraq before we come home, why should those who died be in vain? Obama wants to tuck tale and run home, and screw the consequences because he's a front runner who leads by the dictates of what popularity polls tell him.

Havin said that, I do not care for McCain either. But I will not vote for a socialist, in Obama, who believes that government is the number one source of treatment for all variety of ills in our world today. But I do know many firm Republican and McCain supporters and I cant say I know one who is coming over to Obama, and definately not for those reasons. You obviously live in la la land and are making up scenerios just to prove your point, but I do have a good one for you, it is as follows

My own wife, her mother, her sister and husband, several of her aunts and uncles have almost always voted democrat, and are not this time because of Obama and his limp leadership resume. My wife and her mother, never voted Republican and hated George Bush, but are voting McCain because they cannot stand the thought of such a phony, pro government, tax increase, socialist winning the white house.

Again, im calling you out. I do not know one single person who is doing what you say, though plenty are not pleased with McCAIN. But I really do know scores of people, many close family and friends who are abandoning the democrat ticket, because of Barack Obama. I suppose the next logical thing to say for an Obama supporter to say, as many in here have already, is that,,,,,Oh well thats just because your racist. Dont dare reply to me with that nonsense, try a different angle, and if you were not going to say that, then.....my apologies

If you are well grounded in your own faith, then it is useful to explore what others believe, by reading the Koran. etc.,

Well spoken Charlie. I completely agree.

this sums up Obama-steal all the votes you can, blame everybody else for everything, take credit for everything, all while doing absolutely nothing.

David, because you didn't bother to cite facts, this is nothing more than propaganda, and deserves no more of a response than "I know you are, but what am I!".

One example of a "fact" for you that unfortunately contradicts your statement of taking credit for everything, is this quote from Barack Obama:

Mr. McCain last week proposed waiving federal rules that require older Americans to begin withdrawing funds as soon as they reach age 70 ½. On Monday, Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal, telling the Ohioans, “I want to give credit where credit is due.”

That's all I need do to discredit your over-broad statement of "taking credit for everything", since here is at least one instance where he gave credit -- to an opponent even. How about you pick up the shovel and provide the group with a couple of instances where BO is taking credit for anyone's idea without giving them their due?

As for the "stealing votes" bit, is there any evidence to support this claim, or can this be dismissed along with the remainder of your post as a mindless partisan rant?

I have no problem with mindless partisan rants - it's your right as an American. However, if you hope to change any minds, I would humbly suggest you use facts and reason, not FUD.

That I have to admit is an interesting question.

The Secret Service is in charge of protecting the President, which is a very important security job, and is not a job meant to be forgiving of the past out of fear of what might happen more than a truly definited threat. The President answers to the people. It is the people who must judge his character and what he has done in the past (which was try to help the education of children and Ayers happened to be there too, fyi).

Obama, if someone were to look at his record and personality in depth, would find he is really a good person. I challenge any one person here to look into their past and say there is something they do not regret doing later on or someone they should not have met after the fact, and then say that they should forever be tied to that incident or person however tenuous a connection and have it be the thing which judges them their whole lives even if they have left it behind. If you say no, then to continue to judge Obama over an acquaintance he has drawn no influence from and contend that he is a bad person is promoting a double standard, on top of being a downer to themselves.

Let us judge the candidates on points which truly matter, not these old non sense connections that each party has been throwing around.

As far as I'm aware, there are no security clearances required to run for any office.  To be hired as a non elected functionary may require security clearances, but it would be clearly unconstitutional to require a security clearance to run for elected office. 

Who would be the people clearing them?

Thomas,

 Not necessarily but if they promote violence or incite hate, intolerance of the sinners victims or just condone the sin then they are as bad as or worse than the sinners they associate with.

Are you trying to equate your statement to the alliance between "that one" and Ayers? Really? Would Ayers be the Imam or is "that one" the Imam in your estimation?

Sorry, I forget how woefully ignorant people are of religion and religious practices.

Palin is AG. Assembly of God, which is a form of pentacostalism. Pentacostal is NOT evangelical.  It is a extremist form of Christianity that believes you make demands of God. This is the religious branch that speaks in tongues. Some AG segments (many more than are willing to admit it out loud) do play with poisonous snakes, daring the snakes to bite them, refusing medical care and then demanding god heal them. If you die, then you didn't trust god enough.

The point being is that both side are teaming with religious extremism. Having lived in the AG world, Palin's brand of extremism is worse.

Is this explaination enough or would you like more?

You would do well to remember that millions of Americans are disgusted with the abuse of Christianity and have left religion altogether. As one of the millions who have been emotionally abused by religion, I feel quite within my right to throw stones. In fact, more stones need to be thrown until the that pillar of abuse is pulled to the ground.