[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pma wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better.
[/QUOTE]
If the mission from God involved getting The Band back together, I'd be all for it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
so,how is the 'lipstick pig' doing in the polls now?
and i cant see anything wrong in having Michael Palin as VP as long as John Cleese is Minister of silly walks.it is Michael Palin right?
and i cant see anything wrong in having Michael Palin as VP as long as John Cleese is Minister of silly walks.it is Michael Palin right?
I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you?
I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.
[QUOTE]3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. [/QUOTE]
That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do.
By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you?
I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.
[QUOTE]3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. [/QUOTE]
That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do.
By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that?
^^Sorry...went for a mini vacation with friends. But I'm back now for the foreseeable future LOL
1) The information on what the church believes is available from it's website, or from the recruitment video for the teen group that she was speaking to.
2) I don't think it's a far cry to say that she agreed with the tenants of the church; she ACTIVELY attending her whole adult life. Now your example, you are a member of a church. But she was ACTIVE in the church, ACTIVE in attending. One is not active with groups that one doesn't agree with.
3) You assume I'm pro-Obama; I am not. I am a political observer. Rather like a Watcher, I observe and record. He masks his religious affiliations, because he has to after the Rev. Wright incident. It would not be politically expedient to be associated with someone inflammatory like that, and lets face it, politics is perception and the race for the presidency is a contest.
The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with religious views. People are free to have whatever views they want (anything from crazy Christian to just as crazy Atheistic). The caveat is that we in this country do NOT have to have the views of others shoved down our throat. Using religion as a moral compass to guide your own personal decisions is fine (though you can have a moral compass without religion), but when you are in a governing position your personal views take a back seat to the needs of your constituency. Now someone who lets their religious views drive their decision making is someone I am inherently uncomfortable with. You can be anti-abortion, that's fine with me; but if you try to ban it, you are now forcing your POV on other people, and that is wrong. And that is only one example. The thing that makes me nervous about Palin is that she doesn't seperate her religious views from her work (Republicans generally have a hard time with this). And someone who thinks that the troops in Iraq are on a mission from God is dangerous in a position of authority, IMHO.
4) As far as my remarks on taking the religion out of the conflict in Iraq, I wasn't speaking of the Presidential candidates. I was speaking of Iraqis and Americans. You are right, neither candidate has the grounding for that (although I personally believe Obama might have a better shot here since classically Republicans have tended to be very religious in their governing decisions).
5) Your last argument is down to semantics. Yes, the President cannot declare war. But he can get the war he wants by using the loophole I pointed out earlier. It's only on a technicality that he can't declare war; in the end, if he follows the loop hole, the effects are the same. If the effects are the same in the end, then you might as well give the President the power to declare war, as that's what he can achieve already.
1) The information on what the church believes is available from it's website, or from the recruitment video for the teen group that she was speaking to.
2) I don't think it's a far cry to say that she agreed with the tenants of the church; she ACTIVELY attending her whole adult life. Now your example, you are a member of a church. But she was ACTIVE in the church, ACTIVE in attending. One is not active with groups that one doesn't agree with.
3) You assume I'm pro-Obama; I am not. I am a political observer. Rather like a Watcher, I observe and record. He masks his religious affiliations, because he has to after the Rev. Wright incident. It would not be politically expedient to be associated with someone inflammatory like that, and lets face it, politics is perception and the race for the presidency is a contest.
The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with religious views. People are free to have whatever views they want (anything from crazy Christian to just as crazy Atheistic). The caveat is that we in this country do NOT have to have the views of others shoved down our throat. Using religion as a moral compass to guide your own personal decisions is fine (though you can have a moral compass without religion), but when you are in a governing position your personal views take a back seat to the needs of your constituency. Now someone who lets their religious views drive their decision making is someone I am inherently uncomfortable with. You can be anti-abortion, that's fine with me; but if you try to ban it, you are now forcing your POV on other people, and that is wrong. And that is only one example. The thing that makes me nervous about Palin is that she doesn't seperate her religious views from her work (Republicans generally have a hard time with this). And someone who thinks that the troops in Iraq are on a mission from God is dangerous in a position of authority, IMHO.
4) As far as my remarks on taking the religion out of the conflict in Iraq, I wasn't speaking of the Presidential candidates. I was speaking of Iraqis and Americans. You are right, neither candidate has the grounding for that (although I personally believe Obama might have a better shot here since classically Republicans have tended to be very religious in their governing decisions).
5) Your last argument is down to semantics. Yes, the President cannot declare war. But he can get the war he wants by using the loophole I pointed out earlier. It's only on a technicality that he can't declare war; in the end, if he follows the loop hole, the effects are the same. If the effects are the same in the end, then you might as well give the President the power to declare war, as that's what he can achieve already.
Sara Palin is ugly, just like you. Besides, you nonsharing every man for himself, let's get into debt republican, YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]pma wrote: [/b]
A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better.
[/QUOTE]
If the mission from God involved getting The Band back together, I'd be all for it.
[/QUOTE]
If you spell The Band like that, you're in for a lot of trouble, as Richard Manuel and Rick Danko are dead.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]pma wrote: [/b]
A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better.
[/QUOTE]
If the mission from God involved getting The Band back together, I'd be all for it.
[/QUOTE]
If you spell The Band like that, you're in for a lot of trouble, as Richard Manuel and Rick Danko are dead.
Sarah Palin has shit for brains.
[QUOTE]
[b]Elmer Fudd Gantry wrote: [/b]
Sarah Palin has shit for brains.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you didn't just find that out today.
[b]Elmer Fudd Gantry wrote: [/b]
Sarah Palin has shit for brains.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you didn't just find that out today.
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:
[QUOTE]
[b]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/b]
1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you?
I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.
[QUOTE]3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. [/QUOTE]
That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do.
By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that?
[/QUOTE]
The president can declare war. Vietnam???
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:
[QUOTE]
[b]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/b]
1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you?
I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.
[QUOTE]3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. [/QUOTE]
That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do.
By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that?
[/QUOTE]
The president can declare war. Vietnam???
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:
[QUOTE]
[b]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/b]
1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you?
I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.
[QUOTE]3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. [/QUOTE]
That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do.
By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that?
[/QUOTE]
The president can declare war. Vietnam???
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I'm glad you're back. Regarding your points:
[QUOTE]
[b]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/b]
1. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, Obama is masking his religious affiliation and you have no problem with that? And do you have any source other than your assumption that she believes everything the church shoves down her throat? Do you?
I go to catholic church but not EVERY Sunday. I have had pre-marital sex. Does this make me a bad catholic and thus unable to assume my duties at work? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]2) So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how is one going to do that? I don't think either candidate has a solid lead on the other one there.
[QUOTE]3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. [/QUOTE]
That is correct. I said the President can't DECLARE WAR on another country, as someone suggested a maverick president could one day do.
By the way, is Joe Biden still alive? I haven't heard anything of or about him lately. Think he's loving that?
[/QUOTE]
The president can declare war. Vietnam???
The war in Vietnam was never officially declared. That is part of the problem with that war.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8[/url]
[img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img]
[img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Elmer Fudd Gantry wrote: [/b]
Sarah Palin has shit for brains.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you didn't just find that out today.
[/QUOTE]
Dan Quayle told me.
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Elmer Fudd Gantry wrote: [/b]
Sarah Palin has shit for brains.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you didn't just find that out today.
[/QUOTE]
Dan Quayle told me.