Originally Posted by buggyone

Well, it seems as though the Republicans are talking religion and morality once again. Bring up David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Mark Folley and see their reactions.

We're talking about the greater morality here, and you're bringing up the names of individuals who failed in their personal morality as if that negates the debate. Just because someone may fail in his own morality doesn't make the strive for morality pointless.

Originally Posted by rubicon

,

skyguy: Unfortunately far too many people do not understand what Obama is trying to create here. We are fortunate that the Supreme Court 9-0 pushed back on Obama and his Administration concerning the Hosanna v EEOC case because if they ruled in Obama's favor then it would have removed the buffer between individuals and the state. The Catholic issue you raised is another attempt;albeit for different reasons. If this law is allowed to stand then what is next Catholic agency can't operate adoption agencies unless they allow gay couples to adopt. The Boy Scouts viewed as a religious organization won't be allowed to assemble, etc.......................

Clearly Obama and his Admin believe and speak of the "freedom to worship" whereas the majority of us see it broader as the "freedom of religion' Why the difference ....Obama said it best during his 2008 campaign when he talked about those "small town Americansas bitter people clinging to guns and religion".

Meanwhile Joe Biden, a Catholic has bowed his head in shame at Obama's antics.

The american people chose wrong in 2008

One correction... The American people and dead people chose wrong in 2008!

Originally Posted by buggyone

Well, it seems as though the Republicans are talking religion and morality once again. Bring up David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Mark Folley and see their reactions.

I don't know what thread you're confusing this one with, but people here are speaking about freedom of religion. The only one speaking morality here is you and I for one couldn't care less if President Kennedy had a mistress, President Carter had lust in his heart or if President Clinton got his pipes blown out in the White House. Gee, being you're the one speaking morality, does that mean that you're a Republican?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

We're talking about the greater morality here, and you're bringing up the names of individuals who failed in their personal morality as if that negates the debate. Just because someone may fail in his own morality doesn't make the strive for morality pointless.

Gosh, after reading your post, maybe Buggy was right that we're talking morality after all!

Originally Posted by skyguy79

Gosh, after reading your post, maybe Buggy was right that we're talking morality after all!

Or maybe I just like throwing the football with Buggy. It's a hobby of mine

That's why we all think of RichieLion as the Tom Brady of The Watering Hole.

Originally Posted by buggyone

that's why we all think of richielion as the tom brady of the watering hole.

ooowwwwww!!!

personally, as a devout Catholic, i would like the church to refuse the federal funds and maintain its integrity. as an American taxpayer, i do not know why federal tax dollars are going to any religious institution to begin with...is this an opening for our tax dollars funding muslim schools which teach hate, or Jewish hospitals which perform abortions, or any other group doing any other thing which the taxpayer himself may not wish to support? we are spending billions rebuilding churches and mosques overseas! why???? the federal govt has its tentacles into areas where it does not belong... Get It Out!

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I think you give Panetta too much credit. I don't believe the President will stand by Israel. He's shown no predilection to do so up to this point.

Will he take a stand for Israel to enhance his election chances? Maybe, but it would be antithetical to every action he's taken toward Israel up to this point.

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. It may raise the question of to what degree the U.S., in it's current military and financial situation, should unconditionally pledge support to a government which has shown no cooperation towards our government. Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East, regardless of our wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may find that what goes around comes around.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. It may raise the question of to what degree the U.S., in it's current military and financial situation, should unconditionally pledge support to a government which has shown no cooperation towards our government. Israel's primary objectives seem to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East, regardless of our wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may find that what goes around comes around.

Unbelievable. Nice to know where you stand, though. I knew I had your motives pegged correctly in your thread.

Originally Posted by chachacha

personally, as a devout Catholic, or Jewish hospitals which perform abortions,

Do you have a problem with Jewish hospitals? I know many devout Catholics that are Democrats and who supports aboration the most, I would venture to say the Democrats, right. Before you single out anyone religion check all the facts, there are many more Jews that are against abortion that for it.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. It may raise the question of to what degree the U.S., in it's current military and financial situation, should unconditionally pledge support to a government which has shown no cooperation towards our government. Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East, regardless of our wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may find that what goes around comes around.

" Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East,"

My initial response would be to ask you for some credible evidence for this statement, and I still would like to see that...but as I think about it, that sentence fits a large number of countries...actually, it is difficult to think of a country that the definition does not fit.

"My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly."

It is quite scare to think that our foreign policy would be determined by how our representatives are treated and that personal likes and dislikes would trump what is best for tjis country and the world.


VK....if I misread what you are saying, let me know but I found your post to be rather shocking.

figmo, i have nothing against Jewish people, my point is that religious institutions already are tax exempt, so why should ANY of them receive funding from the federal govt? there are bound to be activities of various religious groups to which taxpayers of another religion might object. it is a way for the govt to try to control and manipulate the churches, and it should stop!

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Or maybe I just like throwing the football with Buggy. It's a hobby of mine

But is it really fun when an opposing team continually fumbles the ball and your team keeps scoring touchdown after touchdown? Just wondering!

Originally Posted by Bucco

" Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East,"

My initial response would be to ask you for some credible evidence for this statement, and I still would like to see that...but as I think about it, that sentence fits a large number of countries...actually, it is difficult to think of a country that the definition does not fit.

"My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly."

It is quite scare to think that our foreign policy would be determined by how our representatives are treated and that personal likes and dislikes would trump what is best for tjis country and the world.


VK....if I misread what you are saying, let me know but I found your post to be rather shocking.

You're absolutely correct, Bucco. It's a longstanding adage among foreign policy makers that sovereign countries have no friends. They have allies and enemies, both of which can and do change from time to time.

In this case, people defend Israel because they are our only friend in the Middle East. They were a lot more friendly during the time we propped them up as a newly-formed country, providing financial aid and arms. Their economy and defense system is now quite mature. Their economy is providing plenty of opportunity and a reasonably high standard of living for all Israelis. But even though their economy is even stronger than our own, only a fraction of the size of course, they still express the need for our foreign aid.

Some people here have said that we should eliminate all foreign aid payments. I wonder if they realize that 80% of U.S. foreign aid payments go to Israel?

Weapons? Of course we continue to supply Israel with weapons. Oh, the accounting ledger will show that they buy the fighter planes, tanks, electronics, etc., mostly from U.S. manufacturers. But paying for the weapons with what? The money we give them in foreign aid, of course! Does anyone realize that the total of our foreign aid to Israel is more than their entire defense budget? Does anyone realize that Israel spends about 50% more on defense as a percentage of their GDP than we do? Think about that.

So for all that, should we expect more cooperation from Israel? Should we expect to have a say in the way they conduct themselves as a nation if it places the U.S. or Americans in greater peril? Do you remember when the entire general staff of our military made a special visit to the White House to argue that Israel's military conduct was putting American soldiers serving in the Middle East in significantly greater peril? Do you remember when Vice President Biden made a 14-hour trip to Israel to meet with Netenyahu only to find that he wouldn't even meet with him, assigning an Israeli minister to meet with the American Vice President? Both those events happened less than a year ago.

I would say that we should have a say in how Israel conducts it's affairs. The U.S. has bought and paid for Israel's allegiance and cooperation. They are an ally in the Middle East, but the way they have conducted themselves in recent years makes them a long way from a being a "friend". I believe we should treat them as an ally, applying whatever political, economic and security pressure necessary to achieve American foreign policy objectives.

And if President Obama, Vice President Biden and Hillary Clinton don't forget being publicly embarrassed by Benjamin Netanyahu the next time Israel asks for more aid or weapons, I wouldn't blame them. They should treat Israel and it's government with American interests as their first and foremost objective. Period!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly.

I'm not questioning the validity of what you state here, but it certainly doesn't help when you have a president so inept as to make the kind of gaff he did as described on this page: Obama Embarrasses America and Belittles Our Ally Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel