posted on July 17, 2007 12:22:19 AM new
BTW, linduh, thank you for the great post on Obama....sounds like a wonderful candidate for president!
I like how he LIVES his faith but doesn't try to LEGISLATE it...how he draws upon it to help people especially the poor and disadvantaged.
I especially liked ...
""He has called for both "a politics of conscience" based on ecumenical religious values and a clear line between church and state. He has both invoked God in his denunciations of the Iraq war and criticized President Bush for using religious terms like "good" and "evil" to justify it.
"The danger of using good versus evil in the context of war is it may lead us to be not as critical as we should be about our own actions," he said at a candidates' forum on religion last month, calling the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the treatment of suspected terrorists at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp "unjust."
Although , linduh, you forgot to bold ""He has called for....."" a clear line between church and state. ""
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 17, 2007 12:23 AM ]
posted on July 18, 2007 07:19:38 PM new
So much for the supposed 'separation of church and state'. Guess that's another hypocrisy the liberals/dems support but ONLY when they report the republicans speaking their faith.
---
March 4, 2007
CIVIL RIGHTS: On the 42nd Anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma
[hillary clinton - believe it or not ]
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. And I want to begin by giving praise to the Almighty for the blessings he has bestowed upon us as a congregation, as a people, and as a nation. and I thank you so much, Reverend Armstrong, for welcoming me to this historic church.
And I thank the First Baptist Church family for opening your hearts and your home to me and to so many visitors today. I have to confess that I did seek dispensation from Reverend Armstrong to come because you know, I'm a Methodist. And I'm in one of those mixed marriages. And my husband, who sends greetings to all of you today, felt it necessary to call the Reverend to make sure that was all right. And thank you, reverend, for being so broad-minded and understanding.
=======
The rest of her speech can be found on hillary's website.
posted on July 18, 2007 07:42:48 PM new
I guess you don't understand the meaning of separation of church and state. Hillary was in a church and Hillary is a Methodist. Why wouldn't she talk about religion under those circumstances. Entirely appropriate. Where it becomes dicey is when someone wants to create laws for everyone, based on their own religion. That is where separation of church and state come in.
posted on July 18, 2007 07:56:57 PM new
Yes, as I said, CC. When a liberal/dem politician uses churches to get their campaigning done...it's okay. I got that a long, long time ago. But it's the atheists that we aren't hearing slam the dems when they use churches to promote their being elected.
When a President speaks out his own personal religious beliefs...the wacko's can't stop screaming about the supposed 'separation of church and state'.
It's always their old double standard.
Funny how this campaign season so many of the democrats have suddenly become SO very vocal about God. LOL LOL LOL Couldn't be to 'buy' votes could it? Oh no.....never. lol lol lol
posted on July 18, 2007 09:23:26 PM new
There are those who believe in God but don't feel the need to publicly declare it or use God as their back-up plan each time they are caught doing something wrong or use God to justify why they do anything at all. The so-called religious right don't seem to understand that because God is so often part of their message. So then they spread the word that those other candidates must be ungodly and immoral because God or religion isn't often in their speeches. So some of the candidates come forward and show by photo-ops, etc that they do believe and they do attend churches. If they don't do it, they are criticized but if they do it they are still criticized.
I remember a story where Bush attended a church some woman went to and when he dropped money in the donation plate the lady said then she knew he was a man of God and had good morals so she would vote for him.
posted on July 19, 2007 12:07:17 AM new
linduh, ""Yes, as I said, CC. When a liberal/dem politician uses churches to get their campaigning done...it's okay. I got that a long, long time ago. ""
Why not? The Republicans used churches and god to further THEIR agenda. Why do you think it's wrong for Democrats to do it? Do you have a double standard????
"""But it's the atheists that we aren't hearing slam the dems when they use churches to promote their being elected. """
As long as they don't try to LEGISLATE their religious beliefs into laws for all it's OK with me.
posted on July 19, 2007 08:43:32 AM new
as I said, CC. When a liberal/dem politician uses churches to get their campaigning done...it's okay. I got that a long, long time ago. ""
You still don't get it. Candidates can talk about religion all they want, but cannot base legislation on their religious beliefs. That is separation of church and state. The fact that Obama is religious is not a threat to separation of church and state, unless he decides to push legislation consistent with his religious beliefs. The same goes for Giuliani, Clinton, or any other candidate.
posted on July 19, 2007 10:39:34 PM new
I really think you can't read, CC.
What I have pointed out it that what dems/liberals have CONSTANTLY complained about the 'right' doing....when they do it...it's OKAY.
Again, it's a liberal/dem double standard.
This board saw the same garbage over and over again.....mocking President Bush for his religion, religious beliefs, talking about his faith.
The congressional liberals even tried to limit churches from having ANY political discussions in their churches OR face losing any gov. tax breaks they might be receiving.
LOL
But when the liberals/dems USE CHURCHES/church groups to put their political agenda's out there...then that's accepted.
It either is for BOTH or not for either.
And by the way....there IS NO 'seperation of church and state in our constitution. That's something the left has TRIED to put in place....but there is NO LIMIT as to where the religious can practice or speak about their faith. NONE. All in the minds of those who work to LIMIT our religious RIGHTS.
I'd thought that was simple enough for even YOU to grasp, CC. Obviously I've given you too much credit for your ability to grasp things you really can't. I won't make that mistake again.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 19, 2007 10:42 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 12:55:48 AM new
Speaking of Vitter I'm sure linduh would want to include him in her
""How creeps like these stay in their positions has to be out of ignorance of those who vote for them. Either that or they share the same lack of moral/ethical values. """
so she can't be accused of having DOUBLE STANDARDS ! LOL!!!!!!
posted on July 20, 2007 05:15:48 AM new
"So much for the supposed 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE'. Guess that's another hypocrisy the liberals/dems support but ONLY when they report the republicans speaking their faith."
Linda---YOU mentioned separation of church and state and I addressed that. Not only is your reading comprehension suspect, but you don't even know what you write. You can't even address the issue or have a civilized discussion. You would rather resort to insults, rudeness, name calling---just like a 10 year old. Did you learn that in church? If you think your insults bother me, you are wrong. Your posts reflect on you and the calibre of your character.
And, just in case you think you are the only poster who knows anything--I know that separation of church and state is not in the constitution, but it has been a tradition and has been accepted since our forefathers signed the constitution. Your precious USSC has upheld that tradition over and over again.
posted on July 20, 2007 06:21:23 AM new
"Linda---YOU mentioned separation of church and state and I addressed that. Not only is your reading comprehension suspect, but you don't even know what you write. You can't even address the issue or have a civilized discussion. You would rather resort to insults, rudeness, name calling---just like a 10 year old. Did you learn that in church? If you think your insults bother me, you are wrong. Your posts reflect on you and the calibre of your character.
Are you sure you don't mean mingo? Fits her MO exactly.
posted on July 20, 2007 02:02:17 PM new
Hi Bill, I can only respond for myself and Mingo has never been rude or insulting to me. Linda, on the other hand, can hardly respond to me (and almost anyone else who disagrees with her) without rude remarks. She loves to attack one's intelligence or patriotism to get a thrill. What she does not know is her remarks are ineffective, especially when you consider the source. I like discussions with people of diverse opinions, but Linda takes everything personally.
posted on July 20, 2007 04:08:54 PM new
CC - Don't speak about what I do for 'thrills'. I point out the craziness of liberals/progressives and how anti/un American they are, as I see them.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE pointing out all you/their HYPOCRISIES. That imo, is what YOU can't stand - the truth.
That is MY constitutional right. Even though your party would like to make it illegal for me and others like me to continue speaking our minds.
And of course none of the sarcastic liberals here are going to act the same with you as they do with me....you're in agreement with all their nonsense.
Doesn't take a brain cell to figure that one out. LOL LOL LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 Jul 20, 2007 04:10 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 04:11 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 05:25:29 PM new
"CC - Don't speak about what I do for 'thrills'. I point out the craziness of liberals/progressives and how anti/un American they are, as I see them.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE pointing out all you/their HYPOCRISIES. That imo, is what YOU can't stand - the truth."
Calm down Linda. See--you are getting all excited again. You sound like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. "You can't handle the truth." We all know how over-the-top his character was in that film. I'm not excited. I'm not even upset about your name-calling, or the enjoyment you get throwing hysterical insults at liberals. I would not dream of stopping you from posting anything you little heart desires.
posted on July 20, 2007 05:56:39 PM new
I'm not misreading your feelings--I am READING your hysterical posts. IMO, anyone who consistently makes the broad, general statements "all liberals" "all democrats" "all liberal are hypocrits" "all liberals support terrorists" and other like comments,cannot even be taken seriously. If I said all Arkansans marry their siblings, would you take me seriously? Well, maybe you would.
posted on July 20, 2007 06:07:00 PM new
The radical liberals are as anti/un-American as are our radical muslim enemies.
That is MY position on ANY radical liberal.
Now you have THAT correctly in front of you.
They are as much the enemies of our Nation as ANY radical muslim could possibly be. They are our enemy from within. Anyone of them that gives aid and comfort to our enemies, especially in time of war, should be tried for TREASON, imo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason," she begins this book [Treason]. "You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."
Ann Coulter
- And why so many like her...she calls a spade a spade. Calls the liberals on their actions.....not their words.
"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 Jul 20, 2007 06:14 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 06:51:24 PM new
"Your denial of it being posted by ME....and lying about my posts....is nothing but more liberal lies."
What on earth are you talking about? Lie about your posts--where? I would not waste my energy. My denial of WHAT being posted by you? What liberals, radical or otherwise, give aide to terrorists? This is what I mean by using hyperbole and broad, general terms. Everyone believes he/she is on the right side of an issue, or they wouldn't argue about it. Most of the liberal posters here can at least admit Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy have some character flaws. They can even find some desirable traits in some conservative Republicans. I am truly convinced, from reading your posts, that you believe the only good liberal is a dead liberal.
As for Ann Coulter, I wouldn't line my bird's cage with her writing. She has her act down pat and is raking in tons of money by being deliberately controversial and downright cruel---and is laughing at the jerks who kiss her ring.
posted on July 20, 2007 06:51:39 PM newI'm not misreading your feelings--I am READING your hysterical posts.
I agree with Coincoach and read LindaK's posts as hysterical posts. LindaK has tipped so far right she's almost off the scale now, hanging to the edge only by a lol and a tsk.
The majority of Americans are not in agreement with their president or his policies so most of America is now 'radical liberal' in Lindak's eyes which makes her daily paranoia grow by leaps and bounds because she is now known as a 'minority' in her very own country. Her fear causes the hysteria and she becomes increasingly nasty to us because she blames us for a situation in which she feels trapped.
(This is just my opinion and once again no crystal ball was needed for this one)
posted on July 20, 2007 07:18:55 PM new
OK, let's focus on the topic LINDUH.
It's about Vitter not Hillary
U.S. Senator David Vitter, R-La., prays for forgiveness for his "very serious sin" that may have gotten him castrated
Threatened with being exposed by investigative hypocrite-hunter Larry Flynt who found the conservative Southern Junior Senator’s phone number (he used his own phone?) on Palfrey’s notorious DC John List, Vitter shrewdly decided to go ahead and expose himself, issuing a press release confessing to "a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible…Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there-with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way"
If Senator Vitter were not such a rabid social conservative, I would say leave the poor sorry schmuck alone with his God, his wife and his hookers. But this particular poor sorry schmuck is mightily trying to impose harsh, inhumane restrictions upon the sexual freedoms and rights to privacy of the rest of us, and he’s been doing it for years.
On the back alleys of the French Quarter, Vitter might be a tomcat, but in Congress, he’s a vociferous crusader for “family values.” He was an aggressive Clinton critic during the Lewinsky scandal, calling for the President’s resignation to “preserve the moral fabric of the country.” The New Orleans Times-Picayune quotes Vitter saying that "infidelity, divorce, and deadbeat dads contribute to the breakdown of tradition." Vitter has also vowed to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, even when the pregnancy results from rape or incest (wonder how he’d feel if he learned he’s knocked up one of his hookers?). Senator Dave is a stern master with the kids too; he’s sponsored legislation to federally finance abstinence-only programs at the expense of real sex education. Of course, “abstinence education” has been proven to be spectacularly ineffective, in part because the kids simply lie about whether they’re having sex, having learned this behavior handily from their elders like Vitter.
The Senator has been particularly colorful in his metaphor for same-sex unions, having called them “the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita,” gaily mocking the agony of his own home state in the wake of the actual hurricanes. Vitter is so vehement in his condemnation of all things homo that he has introduced legislation calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, stating that this is “the most important issue” of our time.
Vitter sounds like an Evangelical, but he's Catholic. He's also Southern regional campaign manager for the Giuliani campaign and was rumored to frequent French Quarter prostitutes even before his phone number appeared on Palfrey’s published records). Interestingly, Vitter first ran for Congress to fill the seat of Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, who resigned after his extramarital affairs became public during the Clinton Follies. While Vitter was campaigning, his wife Wendy was asked what she would do if her husband cheated on her. Mrs. Vitter responded: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."
Ouch. Wonder if castration was one of Wendy’s prerequisites for the “forgiveness” that Vitter said she (and God) gave him when he confessed to his “very serious sin.” Is that a Catholic thing?
Well, in any case, chalk another one up for the DC Madam catching another fairly big fish: a U.S. Senator. Of course, she’s already caught and pan-fried former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias who likened procuring one of Palfrey’s Pamela Martin & Associates’ call-girls to ordering pizza.
And then there’s that even bigger fish, possibly the biggest fish of them all, certainly the biggest Dick, and I’m not talking about the size of his genitalia. That’s right, back in mid-May, you read in this bloggamy that the Vice (as in “criminal”) President patronizes prostitutes. At least, he did while he was CEO of Halliburton maintaining a residence off Chain Bridge Road in the Ballantrae neighborhood in McLean, Virginia, which had a phone number that appears numerous times on the DC Madam’s John List.
posted on July 20, 2007 07:22:13 PM new
And it's about the liberal HYPOCRISY....alwsays so upset about the 'sex life' of any conservatives.
But let anyone mention the sex life of a dem...and we hear the repeated mantra....stay out of their bedrooms....what they do there is private and between spouses.
posted on July 20, 2007 07:34:11 PM new
And another ignorant post from the canadian who has NO CLUE as to most anything American related.
Obviously she doesn't believe the POLLS that most liberals here so cling to. LOL
Because IF she did....she'd be aware, for once, of her totally wrong statement of:
"The majority of Americans are not in agreement with their president or his policies so most of America is now 'radical liberal' in Lindak's eyes"....
Clue phone ringing.....President Bush is NOT up for re-election. So that's a moot point to begin with. And he IS CIC and can VETO any legislation he doesn't support...for another FULL 17-18 months.
Better check where the top runners, hillary and obama are COMPARED to the top republican candidates stand. They're BEHIND old broken-crystal ball reader....who's always wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 Jul 20, 2007 07:37 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 07:40:46 PM new
""Clue phone ringing.....President Bush is NOT up for re-election."""
"Clue phone rining " is OLD with the teenagers you borrowed it from linduh....can't think of anything else to say ???
As to bushit not being up for re-election....I am happy you were able to figure that out. He may not be but there are other Repugs who ARE and many are distancing themselves from bushit They do not view him as an asset, they DO pay attention to the polls and the opinions of the voters.
Also there are , I hear rumors anyway, that there are Repug who want to be president....an outgoing president who is very unpopular again , isn't an asset.
posted on July 20, 2007 07:45:01 PM new
And, no, it's not about the hypocrisy of the Democrats , it's about :
"""If Senator Vitter were not such a rabid social conservative, I would say leave the poor sorry schmuck alone with his God, his wife and his hookers. But this particular poor sorry schmuck is mightily trying to impose harsh, inhumane restrictions upon the sexual freedoms and rights to privacy of the rest of us, and he’s been doing it for years."""
posted on July 20, 2007 07:50:53 PM new
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Most of the liberal posters here can at least admit Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy have some character flaws"
PLEASE back up that nonsense. I'd LOVE to know which liberal HERE you're lying about."
Just a quick search before going to bed:
Shagmidmod July 3
"I don't agree with many of Clinton's pardons."
"Clinton was wrong for his pardons."
Coincoach July 3
"IMO presidential pardons are overused and used for wrong reasons and that includes Clinton's."
]