Is the President going to get away with...

[Guest]

acting so very "bi partisan" in the last weeks ?

This WH and congress for one year were about the most partisan political administration we have seen in years, AND NOW...the President is speaking bipartisan talk (Probably suggested by those wonderful advisors..Axlerod and Emanuel..you know those TRUE and solid bi partisan folks who serve as the main advisors to our President) !

Interesting read today in National Review on this subject...

"Suddenly, bipartisanship is all the rage at the Obama White House.

The president has announced that he will hold a bipartisan gathering on February 25 at Blair House, across the street from the White House, in an effort to get the health-care legislative effort out of the political ditch it is now in. Plans are also under way to stand up a bipartisan Debt Commission by executive order. The commission’s mandate would be to report back to the president and Congress on how to get the nation’s fiscal house in order — with a rather convenient reporting deadline of just after the November midterm elections.

In the daily back-and-forth of political news coverage, it is easy to lose sight of what a stunning turnabout this renewed interest in bipartisanship represents for Barack Obama. For more than a year, his administration attempted to govern based on an entirely different approach. The Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill welcomed any Republican willing to jump aboard their legislative plans. But, as the president and his top advisers repeatedly said, they were going to move ahead with “their agenda” — with or without willing Republican participation."

http://article.nationalreview.com/424653/obamas-very-weak-hand/james-c-capretta

I recall this President as a candidate saying things...and in fact made a point of talking bipartisanship in his first ever news conference as President !

By the way, what ever happened to Presidential news conferences ?

[Guest]

It is very difficult to be bi-partisan when the opposition is the party of no. I find it very hard to believe that not one republican can vote for any of the programs set forth by Obama.NOT ONE. These clowns vote against programs then go back home and take the money and take credit for getting the money. They are determined to see Obama fail even if it means hurting this country. Again to my point:NOT ONE republican has voted for any of the legislation. Obama even went to see them 1 vs. 140 and made them look like what they are,spoiled brats. NOT ONE.

[Guest]

Thank God we have at least one party that says no. Not only should it be no, it should be HELL NO.

If the policy is crap you don't support it... PERIOD. The American people have said no and so have the Republicans.

King Obama and his economic recking crew only have one definition of bipartisanship. Our way or the highway and that extends to the Republicans and the American people themselves.

Don't believe me? Check back in November.

[Guest]

On Thursday Republican obstructionist,Mitch McConnell successfully blocked a proposal to extend by ONE WEEK unemployement benefits that are due to expire Feb.28th. In the first week alone 1.2 million AMERICAN PEOPLE will be affected. Why would he do this? Pure political gain. Please don't give me that republicans are for the American people.

[Guest]

There is a bipartisan bill already submitted by a Republican and Democrat that would take all that into account and more for the American people by the 28th.

Harry Reid in his typical my way or the highway thuggery rejected it out of hand just like the people in his own state are rejecting him right now.

You can spin it anyway you like but we'll see how the people feel about all this in November.

[Guest]

Thank God we have at least one party that says no. Not only should it be no, it should be HELL NO.

.
:mademyday: AMEN

[Guest]

USAToday?Gallop Poll 2/3rds of Americans say the President has made a sincere effort to work with republicans in Congress.
Republican whip Eric Cantor...the republican approach to the Obama agenda is "just say no". They will not support the president but more importantly"no,they will not present an alternative of their own".
Republican senator Judd Gregg,"Republicans have no responsibility to offer plans of their own,but to instead criticize the Presidents".
5 Senate republicans co-sponsered an Obama proposal for a bi-partisan commision to balance the budget then voted lockstep with their peers to oppose it.
NOT ONE VOTE,ever. Wow.

[Guest]

Good, that should give the Democrats an easy win in November then.

[Guest]

Good, that should give the Democrats an easy win in November then.

hahaha I sprayed my cereal all over my screen with that one. Funny

[Guest]

On Thursday Republican obstructionist,Mitch McConnell successfully blocked a proposal to extend by ONE WEEK unemployement benefits that are due to expire Feb.28th. In the first week alone 1.2 million AMERICAN PEOPLE will be affected. Why would he do this? Pure political gain. Please don't give me that republicans are for the American people.

Have you actually been following what is going on ?????

Do you know what congressional leaders and the WH have done with any oppostion party proposals ? Have you been actually watching the maneuvers of congress and the WH ?

[Guest]

yes,yes,yes....I have been watching my government(both parties)play foolish partisan games with my and your future. I do try to be independant in my politics but when I see people place the blame totally on one party or person I feel I must respond. Calling him King Obama is ignorant,it does nothing to solve thew problems. I will also respond to posts that are just not true. Opposition is fine but I wish it would be more constructive than obstructive. I did not make up those quotes in my earlier posts. There was a time when the majority party was allowed to govern. This does not seem to be the case anymore and I wonder why.

[Guest]

yes,yes,yes....I have been watching my government(both parties)play foolish partisan games with my and your future. I do try to be independant in my politics but when I see people place the blame totally on one party or person I feel I must respond. Calling him King Obama is ignorant,it does nothing to solve thew problems. I will also respond to posts that are just not true. Opposition is fine but I wish it would be more constructive than obstructive. I did not make up those quotes in my earlier posts. There was a time when the majority party was allowed to govern. This does not seem to be the case anymore and I wonder why.

I am not picking a "fight" here because your basic thought is true...that is that there are "foolish partisan games" played each and every day by both parties.

Having said that, this particular thread is about THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS, and is based on a campaign that promised much loftier ideas that what has been forthcoming.

You have a congress totally and completely controlled by one party and they also have the WH.

Did you think the so called "stimulus" bill was bi partisan in any way at all ?

Did you think the backroom closed door deals made with the health bills were in anyway bi partisan ?

You express concern about the future....add them up !!!

You allude to "allow to govern"....I must ask you to please explain the meaning of what you mean ????

Are you suggesting that everyone should just stand aside and allow the Democratic party do whatever they want anytime they want with absoulutly no opposition ?

[Guest]

Calling him King Obama is ignorant, it does nothing to solve the problems.

I see. Would that include calling the Republicans clowns?

[Guest]

Bucco,I'll give you one example. Senator Shelby of Alabama announced he would block 70 administration nominees. In the past senators have blocked individuals for a period of time but one senator blocking 70 is unheard of.He is using what is called the HOLDING TOOL. It is legal to do he's just the first to take it to this extreme. I will not go into the reasons for his actions,let me just say like all 100 of them he loves to pork barrell.
During the Bush presidency,3 of his nominations waited more than 3 months. For Obama that number is 46 and 9 more have waited twice that long.

The scary part is that some of the blocked nominees are in our national security agencies.
To me this is what I mean by allowing the majority to govern. When appointments are being held up for no reason other than to hold them up thats not the minority position.
And I haven't even got to the fillibuster stuff yet.
As for calling the repubs clowns if the shoe fits wear it. I just don't see calling Obama a king and then saying he is accomplishing nothing.Don't Kings have unlimited power? Shouldn't he be able to do anything he wants?Shouldn't he be able to get rid of Shelby and all opposition?

[Guest]

In 2007 democrats held up 190 appointees.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21recess.html

[Guest]

It is very difficult to be bi-partisan when the opposition is the party of no. I find it very hard to believe that not one republican can vote for any of the programs set forth by Obama.NOT ONE. These clowns vote against programs then go back home and take the money and take credit for getting the money. They are determined to see Obama fail even if it means hurting this country. Again to my point:NOT ONE republican has voted for any of the legislation. Obama even went to see them 1 vs. 140 and made them look like what they are,spoiled brats. NOT ONE.


Wow...if there was an award for partisan, unbridled spinning...your post is a winner. Excuse me but, haven't the democrats gloated since the Obamster's election about their overwhelming control of both the Senate and the House? So much for their purported and self proclaimed bulletproof mandate.Why do they even need the Republican "clowns" to pass anything including their own wind? The approval ratings of the Democratic leadership, Reid and Pelosi would suggest they are more culpable then the Republicans you mindlessly seek to blame for the administration's failures. Partisan whining about those dreadful Republicans from the party that holds convincing majorities, for now, in both houses begs the question...would you like some cheese with your whine.

For you to lay Obama's colossal impotence and failure on the republican minority is absurd. Further, it is a stale Democratic talking point that actually fuels the growing loyal opposition.

Welcome to the firing line....have a good day in The Villages.

[Guest]

Bucco,I'll give you one example. Senator Shelby of Alabama announced he would block 70 administration nominees. In the past senators have blocked individuals for a period of time but one senator blocking 70 is unheard of.He is using what is called the HOLDING TOOL. It is legal to do he's just the first to take it to this extreme. I will not go into the reasons for his actions,let me just say like all 100 of them he loves to pork barrell.
During the Bush presidency,3 of his nominations waited more than 3 months. For Obama that number is 46 and 9 more have waited twice that long.

The scary part is that some of the blocked nominees are in our national security agencies.
To me this is what I mean by allowing the majority to govern. When appointments are being held up for no reason other than to hold them up thats not the minority position.
And I haven't even got to the fillibuster stuff yet.
As for calling the repubs clowns if the shoe fits wear it. I just don't see calling Obama a king and then saying he is accomplishing nothing.Don't Kings have unlimited power? Shouldn't he be able to do anything he wants?Shouldn't he be able to get rid of Shelby and all opposition?

Perhaps you missed this news.....

"Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., had blocked more than 80 presidential nominations now before the Senate, but tonight he relented, saying he had simply been trying "to get the White House's attention" on two important national security issues related to his state.

Shelby had blocked the nominations by using a procedural tactic called a "hold," which allows individual senators to block votes on presidential nominations. But Shelby's spokesman, John Graffeo, says he will drop "most" of his holds.

Graffeo told ABC News that the purpose of placing the holds were to "get the White House's attention on two issues that are critical to our national security -- the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker acquisition and the FBI's Terrorist Device Analytical Center (TEDAC)." Both issues were unrelated to the nominations, and the latter regarded the Obama administration's decision not to move an FBI lab to Shelby's home state of Alabama.

"With that accomplished, Shelby has decided to release his holds on all but a few nominees directly related to the Air Force tanker acquisition until the new Request for Proposal is issued," Graffeo said. "

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/senator-richard-shelby-obama-nominees-anymore/story?id=9782098

I do not defend his actions nor commend them because to me, it is NOT an example of the point you are trying to make. WHY DO YOU NOT VISIT THE STIMULUS BILL OR THE HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS THUS FAR in order to discuss THIS ADMINSTRATION AND THIS CONGRESS'S ATTEMPTS AT BIPARTISAN SHIP !

Which by the way was a cornerstone of the campaign !!!

[Guest]

I second that thought. The Democrats don't need one single Republican vote to pass their agenda. They have free reign and still can't pass their own bills.

Why? Because even many in their own party know the bills are horrible and they also know the voters are going to make them pay the price for their radicle ways.

Of course Obama isn't a King, he just thinks he is but I agree, calling the Anointed One King won't solve any issues.

The issues will be solved in November and again in 2012.

[Guest]

First Donna....Why did the Dems do it? What was Bush doing to circumvent Congress to get his nominations in WITHOUT approval? Read the entire article please.

[Guest]

Bucco,I did respond to the stimulus in an earlier post asking how REpubs can vote against it then go home and claim they got all the money for their state.
As for health care the Dems were a total failure. I despised the deals that were made to try to get it passed.It was wrong for the Dems to do it.

[Guest]

Cabo 35....I was having a pretty civil conversation with Bucko then your ranting and raving starts. Spin?? My figures are accurate,my quotes are accurate,my FACTS are correct. Mindlessly,I don't think so.

[Guest]

Bucco,I did respond to the stimulus in an earlier post asking how REpubs can vote against it then go home and claim they got all the money for their state.
As for health care the Dems were a total failure. I despised the deals that were made to try to get it passed.It was wrong for the Dems to do it.

You blast Shelby but do not give the entire story which was published almost a week ago.

You do not mention HOW that stimulus bill was passed...please re visit that...you use this to call the Republicans the party of NO ! Please explain .

You despise what the Dems did on health bill but call the Republicans the party of no...a bit confused in this corner..although that is not new.

I get the sense that you read the party stuff and ignore the facts.....which applies to folks in both parties but expand your reading please :)

[Guest]

Thank God we have at least one party that says no. Not only should it be no, it should be HELL NO.

If the policy is crap you don't support it... PERIOD. The American people have said no and so have the Republicans.

King Obama and his economic recking crew only have one definition of bipartisanship. Our way or the highway and that extends to the Republicans and the American people themselves.

Don't believe me? Check back in November.

Finally, you guys are catching on! Where were you in the sixties? I and thousands of others were saying HELL NO WE WON'T GO to the debacle in Viet Nam., while the "silent majority" just sat by! We were called unpatriotic, now we'd be hailed as patriotic "**********". It took a long time and 55,000 lives for America to finally wake up to the fact that American politicians and the military brass can make huge mistakes.

[Guest]

First Donna....Why did the Dems do it? What was Bush doing to circumvent Congress to get his nominations in WITHOUT approval? Read the entire article please.

I did read it. They held them up so he did it while they were out.

The country is broke and going deeper in debt. Tea Partiers want fiscal sanity. We spend 3 dollars for every one coming in. We need jobs, not new ways to go bankrupt. Why does he not listen to the people?

I think he wants the USA to go the same way the Soviet Union went.

[Guest]

I second that thought. The Democrats don't need one single Republican vote to pass their agenda. They have free reign and still can't pass their own bills.

Why? Because even many in their own party know the bills are horrible and they also know the voters are going to make them pay the price for their radicle ways.

Of course Obama isn't a King, he just thinks he is but I agree, calling the Anointed One King won't solve any issues.

The issues will be solved in November and again in 2012.

Yes if all their ideas are so good why do they want the Republicans to vote for these stupid bills. You don't think they want to share the blame do you?
Yes November 2012 can't come soon enough for me.
:agree::agree:

[Guest]

Bucco,
Shelby..fact,he did hold up 70 nominations by himself.So what if 3 months later he withdrew them. The damage was done.
As far as health care and the party of no if it's wrong it's wrong Dem or Repub. The Dems screwed the whole thing up and the repubs didn't help matters.
Stimulus bill...Not one repub voted for it hence the party of no. I still can't believe that not one repub saw any value in the bill.
And as far as readings and habits I have only tried to state facts. I think everything I have written is factual within the no spin zone. Yes I do watch O'Reilly but I also watch MSNBC.
I stated earlier,I am an independant and very proud of it.

[Guest]

Donna,I agree with you. We are in some trouble. We do need jobs. We do need fiscal sanity. I don't have the answers. I'm hoping our gov't does.

[Guest]

Donna,I agree with you. We are in some trouble. We do need jobs. We do need fiscal sanity. I don't have the answers. I'm hoping our gov't does.

That statement is what is wrong. Government should get smaller and let the private sector grow again.

[Guest]

Cabo 35....I was having a pretty civil conversation with Bucko then your ranting and raving starts. Spin?? My figures are accurate,my quotes are accurate,my FACTS are correct. Mindlessly,I don't think so.


Excuse me waynet...but, this is an open political forum. If you expect one on one engagement with posters, perhaps you should just send private messages. Your posts are in a public forum and I am surprised you have an expectation of filtering what you do and do not want to hear. Perhaps you were referring to the use of "clowns" as part of my "rant". I would remind you that it was your characterization of Republicans as "clowns", not mine that perpetuates a tone that would qualify as a "rant" or "rave" and may evoke an unsolicited "in kind" response.

I haven't tried to dispute your facts.....just your partisan conclusions and spin.

Have a nice evening.

[Guest]

However, I am always suspicious what the motives are of new posters is when they jump in with both feet and use the bashing approach.

When it comes to partisanship I always like to quote everybody's all time favorite....Nancy Pelosi. Prior to becoming Speaker she was interviewed in CA and was asked how she evaluated legislation/proposals/bills/etc....her response was it was easy....if it comes from the opposition she said she was against it.

One of Obama's collection of mistakes is delegating to the congress that which he wants done, with no guidelines, direction or expectations and then let's Nancy and the GANG back room what they want to get done.

If it were not for the Mass. election we would have a health care reform package already back doored as they threatened to do. Thank GOD we the people are sending the message.

Bipartisanship is a political mental exercise with no action ever expected to take place...either party. Not until the incumbents are ousted will there be any change.

2010 & 2012 re elect NO ONE....get the crooks and lechers and liars smoke peddalers out of office.

btk

[Guest]

Cabo,facts aren't partisan and don't have spin. They are truths whether you like them or not. You can disagree with them,try to disprove them but to claim facts are partisan is just not true.My facts are partisan only because you do not agree with them. You are right though I should not have called the repubs clowns. Some of you like to refer to the Pres. as king so maybe Repubs should be called his subjects.

[Guest]

Bucco,
Shelby..fact,he did hold up 70 nominations by himself.So what if 3 months later he withdrew them. The damage was done.
As far as health care and the party of no if it's wrong it's wrong Dem or Repub. The Dems screwed the whole thing up and the repubs didn't help matters.
Stimulus bill...Not one repub voted for it hence the party of no. I still can't believe that not one repub saw any value in the bill.
And as far as readings and habits I have only tried to state facts. I think everything I have written is factual within the no spin zone. Yes I do watch O'Reilly but I also watch MSNBC.
I stated earlier,I am an independant and very proud of it.


WAYNET....you profess that you post only facts and want to come across as a straightshooter.......

This is what you are saying...."Stimulus bill...Not one repub voted for it hence the party of no. I still can't believe that not one repub saw any value in the bill."

WAYNET....now llisten....

NOBODY READ IT...NOBODY...THEY WERE NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO EVEN READ IT YET YOU CALL THEM THE PARTY OF NO...COME ON !!!

Based on this one thing alone...I dont think you have a clue and are simply giving out that party line ! You are NOT stating facts as you say...you have distorted all of it ! DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT NOBODY HAD THE CHANCE TO READ IT ?

[Guest]

Cabo,facts aren't partisan and don't have spin. They are truths whether you like them or not. You can disagree with them,try to disprove them but to claim facts are partisan is just not true.My facts are partisan only because you do not agree with them. You are right though I should not have called the repubs clowns. Some of you like to refer to the Pres. as king so maybe Repubs should be called his subjects.


Tell us about the "facts" you distort....ignoring the entire story on Shelby...all you said was 100% out of context.

Ignoring the fact that the Republicans were shut out and had no chance to read the stimulus bill !!

How can you say you are stating truths....doesnt matter what side of the aisle...you are NOT stating facts !

[Guest]

As for Shelby here are the facts...he held up the nominations because he wanted 2 pet projects for his state worht tens of millions of dollars. When the press found out he suddenly changed his mind. Here is a guy who preaches too much gov't until it comes to the money.
As for the stimulus,the repubs were not going to vote for it even if it was one sentence. Before the bill was written they had stated they would not be voting for any stimulus package.As I stated in an earlier post Eric Cantor the minority whip said "just say no,they will not support the Presidents agenda".
Those are the facts.
I'll give you another fact. 7 senate repubs co-sponsered a bill for a bi-partisan commision to try to balance the budget. When it came to a floor vote they voted against it.Please explain that.
Another fact. Obama went to see the repubs on their turf to try and get some bipartisanship going. He answered all their questions,even blamed democrats for some of the problems. What happened? Fact..nothing.

[Guest]

NOBODY READ IT...NOBODY...THEY WERE NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO EVEN READ IT YET YOU CALL THEM THE PARTY OF NO...COME ON !!!

Based on this one thing alone...I dont think you have a clue and are simply giving out that party line ! You are NOT stating facts as you say...you have distorted all of it ! DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT NOBODY HAD THE CHANCE TO READ IT ?[/QUOTE]

Yes the Dems vote for a bill that not one person had a chance to read and the Republicans voted No for a bill that not one person has read.
I'll vote for the Republicans come 2012.

[Guest]

Donna,I agree with you. We are in some trouble. We do need jobs. We do need fiscal sanity. I don't have the answers. I'm hoping our gov't does.

There's the sentiment that gets us in trouble. Government doesn't have the answers. Government isn't the solution, they are the problem.

[Guest]

There's the sentiment that gets us in trouble. Government doesn't have the answers. Government isn't the solution, they are the problem.


:agree:


There should be a thread dedicated to this subject. Liberals (progressives) want the "nanny state." Progressives feel they are mentally and morally superior to conservatives, therefore, they want to construct the laws and regulations according to their "standards"that everybody should obey.

Remember:

If a conservative doesn't believe in God--he keeps it to himself.
If a liberal doesn't believe in God--he wants it (God) eliminated.

If a conservative doesn't like meat--he don't eat it.
If a liberal doesn't eat meat, he wants to outlaw meat.

If a conservative does not like guns--he won't buy one.
If a liberal does not like guns, he wants to outlaw them.

These are just the tip if the proverbial iceberg of how liberals would change your world.

[Guest]

Tell us about the "facts" you distort....ignoring the entire story on Shelby...all you said was 100% out of context.

Ignoring the fact that the Republicans were shut out and had no chance to read the stimulus bill !!

How can you say you are stating truths....doesnt matter what side of the aisle...you are NOT stating facts !

Ok then....how many bills were read during the previous administrations? This reading of the bill thing is just so much smoke. When the Repubs required the bill to be read before the Senate NO ONE WAS THERE.

Now to the stimulus package...the Repubs voted against it but then they show up in their districts for ribbon cuttings. The height of hypocrisy.

They vote against it and then take credit.....losers.

[Guest]

Ok then....how many bills were read during the previous administrations? This reading of the bill thing is just so much smoke. When the Repubs required the bill to be read before the Senate NO ONE WAS THERE.

Now to the stimulus package...the Repubs voted against it but then they show up in their districts for ribbon cuttings. The height of hypocrisy.

They vote against it and then take credit.....losers.

All the democrats voted against everything about Iraq, now want to take credit. Hypocrites-all.

[Guest]

As a matter of fact Donna your statement is wrong. The Dems did vote to invade Iraq. Also everytime a vote came up to increase troop strength or the money needed to fight the war the majority of Dems voted yes.

[Guest]

The only losers are the American people. The crooks are in D.C.

Problem is, you guys are splitting hairs. Politicians are power hungry crooks both Democrats and Republicans.

So it goes back to party philosophy in general. Everyone knows Democrats are tax and spend and Republicans are more private sector, tax cut oriented. Democrats in general are big government central control and Republicans lean more towards limited government... in general.

What we have now is the biggest tax and spend, in debt, large government, central control administration in history and how do they propose to fix it all? More spending, higher taxes.

So far not one person has ever been able to answer this question. Anyone want to try?

Name one society in world history that taxed and spent it' way to prosperity?

Yet that's exactly what the Democrats are trying to do. Sorry folks, it doesn't work and it never will. All you end up with is more debt and more powerful central governments.

But then again, I guess some do want larger central control of our lives. There were we part company.

[Guest]

My last post on this topic...... I want to thank both Jurek and Dklassen for having an open mind as far as Obama goes. The man has been President for less than 2 years and you have already decided that you will not vote for him in 2112.I wonder if you were as quick with Bush. I really doubt it.

[Guest]

Already decided I won't vote for him in 2012? :a20:

Dude, I decided not to vote for him two years ago and it's only getting worse. Obama makes me wish we had Bill Clinton back.

[Guest]

My last post on this topic...... I want to thank both Jurek and Dklassen for having an open mind as far as Obama goes. The man has been President for less than 2 years and you have already decided that you will not vote for him in 2112.I wonder if you were as quick with Bush. I really doubt it.

I decided that in 2008. I feel like somebody here is playing us.

[Guest]

This morning Democratic senator from Indiana Evan Bayh announced he will not run for reelection. One month ago he had a 20 point lead to be reelected. Former Senator Republican Dan Coates announced he is running and he has a 20 point lead in the polls. Another vote against the Dems.

[Guest]

As a trannsplanted Hoosier I am thrilled with the news that Bayh is quitting. I haven't been this happy since Dan Quayle defeated his father.

[Guest]

Ok then....how many bills were read during the previous administrations? This reading of the bill thing is just so much smoke. When the Repubs required the bill to be read before the Senate NO ONE WAS THERE.

Now to the stimulus package...the Repubs voted against it but then they show up in their districts for ribbon cuttings. The height of hypocrisy.

They vote against it and then take credit.....losers.

This thread is about the PRESENT...NOT THE PAST !

IF you read my posts it is all about this administration.....if you want me to say that both parties do stuff....I OPENLY WILL AGREE.

But this President ran on TRANSPARENCY AND A lot of other things that are just flat out not happening.

Why can you not see the lying going on....are you so party blind ?

[Guest]

If a conservative doesn't believe in God--he keeps it to himself.
If a liberal doesn't believe in God--he wants it (God) eliminated.


If a modern-day conservative believes in God, however, he wants to make sure everyone else does. And if one suggests, for example, taking prayer out of schools, this is "an attack on God". A modern-day conservative christian also makes false claims about the United States being established as a Christian Nation. A modern-day conservative needs to read some Thomas Jefferson.


If a conservative doesn't like meat--he don't eat it.
If a liberal doesn't eat meat, he wants to outlaw meat.


However, if a modern-day conservative doesn't like abortion, he wants to outlaw it.
If a modern-day conservative doesn't like gay marriage, he wants to outlaw it.
If a modern-day conservative doesn't like certain books, he tries to get them banned from the library.


If a conservative does not like guns--he won't buy one.
If a liberal does not like guns, he wants to outlaw them.


Here, at least, I agree with you completely.

Modern-day liberals dont "get" the following points.

- in some places, guns are 'tools' (like where my mom lives in rural Indiana) frequently used to eliminate varmints.
- 'back in the day' a gun *was* the then-modern-day equivalent of an assault rifle.
- kids used to have GUN CLUBS in SCHOOLS. (Gee, how did we EVER survive?)

These days, a modern-day liberal has an uncontrollable urge to get into your wallet because they "know better". A modern-day conservative has an uncontrollable urge to make proclamations on what goes on in your bedroom for precisely the same alleged reason.

Please note my use of "modern day". Used to be Conservatives believed in leaving people alone as long as nobody else's rights were violated. Liberals, at least from my point of view, used to believe in a more active government, but not the "government always knows best" attitude we see today.

[Guest]

A modern-day conservative christian also makes false claims about the United States being established as a Christian Nation.

You're way off on that one. Maybe it's time for a history lesson.

[Guest]

If a modern-day conservative doesn't like gay marriage, he wants to outlaw it.


You cannot out law something that has never been the law for thousands of years.

If a modern-day conservative doesn't like certain books, he tries to get them banned from the library.

If you are referring to the Sarah Palin incident, It never happened.

[Guest]

djplong "...false claims about the United States being established as a Christian Nation. A modern-day conservative needs to read some Thomas Jefferson."

Just skim the Federalist Papers. One, only one of many examples of the Founding Fathers' strong beliefs in a Biblical creator, an almighty God, is found in Federalist 2. Written to presuade others to ratify the Constitution:

"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language,
professing the same religion , attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
Please, give me a break...

[Guest]

If a modern-day conservative believes in God, however, he wants to make sure everyone else does. And if one suggests, for example, taking prayer out of schools, this is "an attack on God". A modern-day conservative christian also makes false claims about the United States being established as a Christian Nation. A modern-day conservative needs to read some Thomas Jefferson.



However, if a modern-day conservative doesn't like abortion, he wants to outlaw it.
If a modern-day conservative doesn't like gay marriage, he wants to outlaw it.
If a modern-day conservative doesn't like certain books, he tries to get them banned from the library.



Here, at least, I agree with you completely.

Modern-day liberals dont "get" the following points.

- in some places, guns are 'tools' (like where my mom lives in rural Indiana) frequently used to eliminate varmints.
- 'back in the day' a gun *was* the then-modern-day equivalent of an assault rifle.
- kids used to have GUN CLUBS in SCHOOLS. (Gee, how did we EVER survive?)

These days, a modern-day liberal has an uncontrollable urge to get into your wallet because they "know better". A modern-day conservative has an uncontrollable urge to make proclamations on what goes on in your bedroom for precisely the same alleged reason.

Please note my use of "modern day". Used to be Conservatives believed in leaving people alone as long as nobody else's rights were violated. Liberals, at least from my point of view, used to believe in a more active government, but not the "government always knows best" attitude we see today.

You should consider dealing with facts rather than your little verbal games.

[Guest]

You should consider dealing with facts rather than your little verbal games.

:agree:

[Guest]

You're way off on that one. Maybe it's time for a history lesson.

How am I 'way off'? The Constitution separates church and state and the Federalist Papers explain it. Thomas Jefferson himself said he saw no redeeming value in Christianity (in the orthodox way it was being practiced back then). Let's remember that the Constitution states:

"Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It does NOT state "...establishment of A religion".

In the above, "establishment" is a NOUN as opposed to a verb. A 'church' is an establishment of religion, as is a prochial school these days. Kind of like how a pub is an establishment of alcohol :)

The Constition goes on to say "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".

When the authorities start breaking into your house to prevent you from making your dinner prayers, then I'll be on the side of those being persecuted.

I'm not being sarcastic here - in all seriousness, what is it that you think I'm missing?

[Guest]

How am I 'way off'? The Constitution separates church and state and the Federalist Papers explain it. Thomas Jefferson himself said he saw no redeeming value in Christianity (in the orthodox way it was being practiced back then). Let's remember that the Constitution states:

"Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It does NOT state "...establishment of A religion".

In the above, "establishment" is a NOUN as opposed to a verb. A 'church' is an establishment of religion, as is a prochial school these days. Kind of like how a pub is an establishment of alcohol :)

The Constition goes on to say "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".

When the authorities start breaking into your house to prevent you from making your dinner prayers, then I'll be on the side of those being persecuted.

I'm not being sarcastic here - in all seriousness, what is it that you think I'm missing?

You refuse to consider the facts. Please quote the constitution where it says we must separate the Church from the State. You are quoting those who want to change history rather and you are not actually reading the constitution.

Liberals do this all the time. They believe each other and forget the facts.

This is a complete waste of time because when liberals don't like the truth they just quote each others lies.

[Guest]

djplong, with the utmost respect, although Thomas Jefferson was considered by many a great statesman, he wasn't the only designer of The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers or other historical documents that went into drafting this country's principals and laws. Why do you reference only Jefferson?
Our founding fathers didn't need to "establish" a religion. They, and their forefathers who came to America already had their own religious beliefs. The Puritans came to keep their freedoms within these religious beliefs from being trampled on by The Church of England. The Pilgrims' course to America brought them because they found it necessary to separate from The Church of England.
They wanted a nation where they could worship, conduct business and teach their children with the help of a Sovereign God, not a Sovereign King.

Read The Declaration of Independence my friend: WHEN in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....

The members of Congress of the Thirteen States, which included Jefferson, but not he sololy, further address the King of England:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Jefferson believed in God. It is believed that his beliefs were more toward a Unitarian belief.

How do you think Yale University was started?

[Guest]

djplong, with the utmost respect, although Thomas Jefferson was considered by many a great statesman, he wasn't the only designer of The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers or other historical documents that went into drafting this country's principals and laws. Why do you reference only Jefferson?
Our founding fathers didn't need to "establish" a religion. They, and their forefathers who came to America already had their own religious beliefs. The Puritans came to keep their freedoms within these religious beliefs from being trampled on by The Church of England. The Pilgrims' course to America brought them because they found it necessary to separate from The Church of England.
They wanted a nation where they could worship, conduct business and teach their children with the help of a Sovereign God, not a Sovereign King.

Read The Declaration of Independence my friend: WHEN in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....

The members of Congress of the Thirteen States, which included Jefferson, but not he sololy, further address the King of England:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Jefferson believed in God. It is believed that his beliefs were more toward a Unitarian belief.

How do you think Yale University was started?

Well said. I am impressed with your knowledge.

[Guest]

djplong, with the utmost respect, although Thomas Jefferson was considered by many a great statesman, he wasn't the only designer of The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers or other historical documents that went into drafting this country's principals and laws. Why do you reference only Jefferson?
Our founding fathers didn't need to "establish" a religion. They, and their forefathers who came to America already had their own religious beliefs. The Puritans came to keep their freedoms within these religious beliefs from being trampled on by The Church of England. The Pilgrims' course to America brought them because they found it necessary to separate from The Church of England.
They wanted a nation where they could worship, conduct business and teach their children with the help of a Sovereign God, not a Sovereign King.

Read The Declaration of Independence my friend: WHEN in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....

The members of Congress of the Thirteen States, which included Jefferson, but not he sololy, further address the King of England:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Jefferson believed in God. It is believed that his beliefs were more toward a Unitarian belief.

How do you think Yale University was started?

BK. You obviously did your homework. Kudos to you.

The founding fathers were certainly godly men, but a few of them would not subscribe to the Apostles Creed.
They were not afraid of religion, like the Left wants people to believe, they were afraid of a state controlled religion.
And contrary to history revisionists' none of them were atheists.

[Guest]

I don't dispute for a single minute that they (the founding fathers) were religious men. I believe that their genius was in seeing the danger of mixing state and religion. When I have more time (hopefuilly tonight) I will more thoroughly repsond to the above posts.

That being said, I'm *ecstatic* that we're able to keep this discussion civil!