posted on November 12, 2006 08:53:02 PM new
Exactly! That's because you have no respect for the troops or anyone else.
You did this exact same thing last year when a poster asked for prayers for a family member and you became just as disrespectful because of your mental illness. Get some help.
posted on November 12, 2006 09:03:03 PM new
I've read other boards where Veterans Day topics were posted with all board members replying appropriately and respectfully without regard to party affiliation. You should be ashamed, Linda.
posted on November 12, 2006 09:03:46 PM new
ROFLMHO.....I think ANYONE who goes back and actually reviews the previous 'thank you veterans' threads....will see things MUCH differently than you LIE about kiara.
You continue to lie...now you bring up KD's post. tsk tsk tsk
Going to bring up your lie about me not knowing women served in the Armed Forces too? LOL Or any of the hundred LIES you've continued to REPEAT over the years to get attention kiara.
Lie away...you do it so well....AND so often...for years, and years and years.
Letting go of things just isn't something you've EVER been able to do. You've argued with others posters in the same fashion....about things that also happened years and years ago.
Someday....you'll get OVER it. Everyone else has let it go....EXCEPT you.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 13, 2006 05:56:03 AM new
Far be it from me to tell you what to do and I suspect there is no one on earth who can. You have your own agenda and nothing anyone says will penetrate. Rant on. As far as separation of church and state, although that phrase is not specifically in The Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court ruled:
The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson also was the first case to interpret the Clause as imposing a restraint on the states as well as the federal government, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That's the SUPREME COURT. That's their interpretation of the law.
posted on November 13, 2006 07:00:02 AM new
And, in the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.' It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."
O'Connor defends division of church, state
The system has served the U.S. well, the retired justice tells a W&M audience
BY ANDREW PETKOFSKY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Oct 8, 2006
WILLIAMSBURG - Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had a question yesterday for those who argue that federal courts should not enforce a separation between church and state.
"Why should we trade our system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" she asked an audience of more than 400 people.
O'Connor, who holds the ceremonial post of chancellor of the College of William and Mary, shared her thoughts on the relationship between religion and government in a lecture and discussion sponsored by the W&M law school's Institute of Bill of Rights Law. The event was held in Colonial Williamsburg's Kimball Theatre.
Spurred by questions from a panel that included her biographer, one of her former law clerks and a professor of religious studies, O'Connor said she's thankful for a Constitution that protects citizens' free exercise of religion and prohibits the government's endorsement a particular religion.
She also said she strongly disagrees with the idea, currently popular in some circles, that the federal government should have greater leeway to reflect the Christianity practiced by the majority of Americans.
The governments of most countries do endorse a state religion, O'Connor said, sometimes with the result that people holding minority views and beliefs are persecuted, prosecuted in court and even executed.
She recalled a case in Afghanistan in which someone who had converted from the majority religion of Islam to Christianity was sentenced to death.
"I do think we're lucky in this country," she said. "We have generally kept religion a matter of individual conscience and not a matter for the prosecutor or bureaucrat."
O'Connor acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decisions on religious freedom cases have built a wall of separation between church and state that does not run in a straight line with perfectly clear edges and boundaries.
She compared that metaphorical wall to the curving "serpentine wall" built by Thomas Jefferson at the University of Virginia.
O'Connor acknowledged the test of whether a reasonable person would consider a religious expression, such as display of the Ten Commandments on government property, to be a government endorsement of religion has led to decisions that allow some displays and prohibit others.
But she said that test will serve until someone devises a better one because very few things in life are simple and straightforward.
posted on November 13, 2006 07:18:21 AM new
Again, coincoach...you show us NO WHERE that ANY ONE, including our Presidents are FORBIDDEN to speak about their beliefs in God...NOR are they restricted about making their decisions based on their religious beliefs.
ALL Presidents have done so....from G. Washington through this President....included ALL the democratic ones. EVEN clinton and carter.
To think they or anyone else is limited in how they apply their own personal religious beliefs....is CRAZY...and FALSE.
NO restrictions.
The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily
"It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
-- George Washington (as quoted by Gouverneur Morris in Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 25 March 1787)
Reference: George Washington and the New Nation, James Flexner (116-7)
==
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. Thomas Jefferson
========
YOU may argue that they didn't....OR that they shouldn't do so, but there's plenty of proof that they did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 13, 2006 07:30 AM ]
posted on November 13, 2006 07:43:23 AM new
EARTH TO LINDA! Show me where in my posts I ever said the President cannot talk about his beliefs. He can talk about them all he wants. Just don't impose them on any governmental decision. Boy, you are a selective reader. You are playing with semantics now. Everyone makes decisions based on religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds and environmental influences (parents.) What I have said over and over,and you choose to ignore, is that one's religious beliefs cannot interfere with the running of government. If a (gasp!) Moslem were president, would he be able to force you to bow to Mecca? Of course not. This is why the Supreme Court decisions Roe v Wade and Everson v Board of Ed exist. Think whatever you want, but stop twisting my words to suit your questionable arguments.
posted on November 13, 2006 07:50:31 AM new
linda, ""ALL Presidents have done so....from G. Washington through this President....included ALL the democratic ones. EVEN clinton and carter.""
And my response at 8:09:04 this morning in that thread.
==============
Here's a couple more:
"We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon."
Jimmy Carter
"You can't divorce religious belief and public service I've never detected any conflict between God's will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other."
Jimmy Carter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 13, 2006 08:24 AM ]
posted on November 13, 2006 10:03:28 AM new
"We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon."
damn-if I knew the dude was coming,I would have baked a cake.........
As I stated before I dont agree with most of Rustys posts,but I appreciated his salute to the veterans. I'm not sure how the Presidents going to church relates to this.I would like to comment on the Presidents going to church,but being the fact its been quite some time I graced the place, classic is left speechless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on November 13, 2006 10:32:49 AM new
I know you did, classic....or else you wouldn't have thanked him for saying what he did.
My problem entered when he insulted me...brought ME into the mix of his on-going slams. Otherwise I would never have posted in this thread. But once I did....lol....all the game playing sandbox crowd arrived....as usual.
Imo, some liberals give lip service to 'supporting our troops' as long as they are kept here at home...never actually sent to war....never called on to do what they are trained to do.
And many of them here have agreed with the liberals in our Congress....and called them warmongers/etc....just like they did during VN....baby killers...etc.
Imo, most of the liberals here have expressed that as being their position several times. As did rusty in this thread....mentioning bringing them home. As has hellen agreeing they were the terroirst breaking and entering the Iraqi homes...etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 13, 2006 10:37 AM ]
posted on November 13, 2006 10:46:08 AM new
SWEET JEEESUS! Linda!
For somebody who ALLEGEDLY doesn't care what people think of her you sure do blather on and on and on and on and on about one insult!
You should be USED TO IT by now!
Ya whiney, thin-skinned baby, get over it!
posted on November 13, 2006 10:59:09 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda- The President's religious beliefs are not an issue and are "slammed" only by idiots----EXCEPT when they bleed into his Presidential decisions and influence. That's a no-no.
Linda--How do you get your reasoning from my post above. The key word is Presidential decisions. He can go to church 7 days a week, he can talk about religion all he wants. Just keep it out of governmental issues, policies, law. If congress, by some fluke, passes a law which makes it a federal offense to teach Evolution, the President, even though he may not believe in evolution, would have to veto that law.
Also, I have no problem with Jimmy Carter's statement. Living your life in such a manner is commendable. I bet God loves Moslems as much as he loves Christians, Jews, Buddists and atheists.
posted on November 13, 2006 11:06:12 AM new
I disagree, coincoach.
There are MANY moral/ethical issues that our leaders must make decisions and vote on .....all the time.
How one's religious beliefs influence them WILL, usually, be a part of any decision they make...vote they place. Because it's a HUGE part of who they are...as a person...period.
embryotic research
abortion
death penalty
welfare
aid to the less fortunate
through charity or gov.
foreign aid -
the list is long....
We as humans form our positions based on our OWN moral/ethica/religious belief systems.
It doesn't matter if we disagree on this point or not. That IS why the liberals are always insulting the 'Christian right'...or the neo-cons...because they don't agree with their religious belief systems.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 13, 2006 11:34:29 AM new
Let's review... This is what got Linduh all bent out of shape... "It is easy for people like Linda to point fingers and accuse liberals of being anti-American, because people that are shallow minded have no concept of our point of view."
Wow, what an insult Linduh!!! I've actually insulted you in the past, this is not an insult, but rather insight. This is what you have managed to defend yourself with? Come one now... Being shallow minded is a way of life for you. You have absolutely no concept of reality. You are nothing but a blathering extremist neocon (see Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter). You have made plenty of insults towards others, you have stated so many lies, and yet this is your argument??? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
posted on November 13, 2006 11:38:09 AM new
I got a better idea , linda, you big tough "Marine Mom".
Why don't YOU honor the vets by going to the nearest VA hospital...visit a few of the vets....the 19-year-olds who will be in a wheel chair forever, the ones with arms blown off..or legs..or faces.
Why don't you go there and tell them about the horrors of being ""Insulted in a Chat Room."" !!!!
I'm sure it will go over as big as bush comparing his scratched arm to their wounds.
You know, the scratch he got on that dangerous brush cutting mission in the wilds of Texas.
But you won't....you'll just whine and cry forever.....wimp.
posted on November 13, 2006 11:42:43 AM newLinduh, you made my point loud and very clear for everyone to see.
You are more interested in spreading hate, no matter at what cost than anyone else who has ever posted here. You don't call into question other's statement, instead you swell up with so much hatred and anger that you embarrass yourself and anyone who calls themselves a conservative. You go well beyond the extremism of the right that you push for fascism at every level. Furthermore, You are a joke and an embarrassment to Americans far and wide.
I second those sentiments.
Did you notice how Linda is calling every one a liar now. It is her latest form of hate.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 13, 2006 11:44:35 AM newMy problem entered when he insulted me...brought ME into the mix of his on-going slams. Otherwise I would never have posted in this thread. But once I did....lol....all the game playing sandbox crowd arrived....as usual.
I didn't view Rusty's words as a slam, Linda. It was one little sentence where he mentioned your name only once as an example of someone who does not understand his position and calls him anti-American. He did not rant. He went on to explain how he felt in a rational manner.
Perhaps if you would hesitate and read his words and the words of others who you disagree with you would gain a better understanding of their position on these matters.
posted on November 13, 2006 12:10:12 PM new
C'Mon linda! don't be shy now....keep going and going...tell us how being insulted by liberals in a chat room is JUST as bad as having your face shot off, being almost burned to death in a rolled over Humvee!
C'mon BIG BRAVE Marine Mom!
Let's hear some more whining about how someone, whose opinion you ALLEGEDLY don't care about, has you whining forever, wounded and bleeding! WIMP!
posted on November 13, 2006 12:24:05 PM new
How one's religious beliefs influence them WILL, usually, be a part of any decision they make...vote they place. Because it's a HUGE part of who they are...as a person...period.
That is probably true for the average person. The President is the ELECTED leader of a diverse nation. If he votes only according to his religious beliefs, he is not representing the whole country. If he cannot do his job with the best interests of the whole country in mind, then he should not be President. If you want to make all your decisions based on religious belief, the you should be the Pope, not the President.
posted on November 13, 2006 12:34:07 PM new
That's partially true, coincoach.
Just as those two muslims how serve in our Congress....MOSTLY represent those of their religious background.
The voters put this President....they put ANY president in office because they support his morals/values/ethics....and some his religious beliefs.
That he was elected....by those who he mostly is in agreement with.....is because that's what the MAJORITY of voters liked about him.
This President has said, as MOST Christians do, that he prays for direction from his God. AS most all religious people do.
To deny that....to say he'd vote to allow stem search research or abortion BECAUSE he represents the WHOLE group of people who don't agree....is nothing but sillyness on your part.
He would support the issues as HE sees them. As do they all. Except kerry....but we know he's been confused from day one anyway.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 13, 2006 12:43:44 PM new
rustygumbo....and shagmidmod....again breaking the rules because they don't apply to HIM....everyone else that posts on the RT...but NOT him. He believes HE'S ABOVE any rules he doesn't like.
Just as he stated on page one...if HE doesn't agree our troops should have been sent into Iraq...then that's ALL that matters.
Never mind that MOST in the party HE supports DID VOTE TO SEND THEM TO WAR.
-------
Now he's trying to 'make light' of his bringing MY name in to this thread. Thinking he'd be PROTECTED and could say, AGAIN, whatever he wanted to about me.
It's not this ONE insulting post he made....although he CERTAINLY could have answered classic in the same fashion he did....WITHOUT AGAIN INSULTING me.
Was this insult as bad as most of the ones he throws at me? Nope....sure aren't.
THIS post of his is more like what he directs to me.....even, as other posters have mentions, when I'm not EVEN IN THE THREAD AT ALL. Others HAVE noticed he can't leave ME out of any thread he posts in......his ANGER towards those who don't agree with HIS 'further left than progressive' political positions....just make him lose his 'cool'
shagmidmod said: "Again, Linda, you are nothing but a piece of crap, rolled in a neocon nut topping, dipped in vomit, and sprayed from the butt of George W. Bush all over the toilet seat. And that is a compliment."
And that too isn't the worst he's done....but it appears now he want to RATE the vileness of posts he does direct to me.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 13, 2006 12:49:26 PM new
Yes he was elected by the majority, but 49% of the people did not vote for him. It was not a unanimous election. Therefore, in order for him to lead the whole country, he cannot base the decisions that affect everyone solely on his own religious beliefs. That is the nature of public service. If you have ever seen the movie Failsafe, there is a perfect, though very dramatic, illustration in it. However, it gets my point across. Due to a glitch in the system, we accidently A-bomb Moscow. In order to prevent the obliteration of our country in retaliation, the President makes the decision to voluntarily bomb New York City, even though his wife is in that city. How could he make that decision? Because he swore an oath to serve his country and its best interests.
posted on November 13, 2006 01:02:18 PM new
Okay...coincoach...I'm about done trying to PROVE to you that ALL presidents have done and do the same thing.
I thought by mentioned carter and giving you HIS words...that disagree with what you're trying to promote...it might make a difference. But it obviously doesn't.
So...you can continue believing that the decisions made by MOST all religious people do come and are based upon their religious belief. They use it as guidelines to make their decisions.
Just as this President believed, and prayed about, going into Iraq. He did and STILL DOES believe it was necessary not to allow saddam to remain in power.
WHICH was in FULL agreement with the previous TWO administrations....ONE of which was CLINTON.
And he makes all his decisions that way....as I see most other past Presidents have done...some still continue to do...as with carter.
And I still find it laughable that you hold on to the misbelief that when one party is elected to gov. the US....that means they HAVE to do what the opposing side wanted done. LOL IF that were so...IF that were true...then they'd have VOTED FOR THE OTHER SIDE.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on November 13, 2006 01:48:10 PM new
Linda, Are you dyslexic? I did not say that the President should do whatever the opposing side wants. I said he needs to do what is best for ALL citizens of this country. Because we have many different religions as well as atheists and agnostics who are citizens of this country, religion should have no part in governmental decisions. If it did, those who do not have similar beliefs would not be served. No wonder so many people here are so frustrated by your posts. We do not agree and that's fine, but jeez, woman--learn to read.
posted on November 13, 2006 02:02:34 PM new
LOL....no, they're frustrated and won't answer ANY questions directed to them. You included....you also avoided mine.
They only come in to make their sandbox comments...personal ones....rarely to actually address the topic.
And don't accuse me of doing what you ALSO do. I made two statements in a previous post to you.....only ONE you focused on and then blamed me for not reading what you had written. WHEN I had addressed BOTH of your statements.
I said: "Again, coincoach...you show us NO WHERE that ANY ONE, including our Presidents are FORBIDDEN to speak about their beliefs in God...NOR are they restricted about making their decisions based on their religious beliefs."
"i]ALL Presidents have done so....from G. Washington through this President....included ALL the democratic ones. EVEN clinton and carter[/i].
"[i]To think they or anyone else is limited in how they apply their own personal religious beliefs....is CRAZY...and FALSE.
NO restrictions[/i]."
ALL President support their party platform...for the most part. Don't like one...vote for the other. Nothing to do with 'selective reading'.
The fact that this President is a religious man and has said so....has for the PAST 6 years been a point of contention for them.
But it NEVER garnered a single mention when the same thing came from carter....when clinton was ALWAYS photographed with a Bible in his hand...nor when it was news that hillary attended BIBLE study meetings IN OUR CAPITOL.
It ONLY matters if it's done by a republican president. Dems can do it...won't EVER bother them.
Double standard is how I refer to MOST of the things that get them in a tizzy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 13, 2006 02:17 PM ]
