That rhetoric is why the country has went to shit these past 7 years. Economy in a drag, unwinnable war, president a laughing stock of the world, and civil and human rights in America regressed. Clinton abolishing the presidency? Rhuiden’s fantasy. No basis in reality, and as such is a substanceless remark. But then again, that’s not surprising. Even if she did, it’d be better than his Trigger Happy “Repubnukans” who if elected another four years will end up blowing up half the world and creating 10000% more terrorists than existed at the dawn of the new millennium.
Ah, it is threads like these which make me glad that the Constitution limits the power of the president, and implements a federal instead of a unitary government. Not that various people haven’t tried to adjust those facts during the course of history…
I’ve survived Bush, I honestly think I could survive anybody who is likely to win. Of course, I will try to vote in the candidate who I do think will be best. The problem is that the only real way to determine how good a president is is to make him president. Did anybody anticipate that Lincoln or FDR would do as well as they did right before they were elected? (though it is possible to make a case that neither of them were good presidents, and a duck could have won against Hoover)
No, I have not met her…thank God. It is obvious in the way she carries herself and the way she speaks. I can’t be the only one who has noticed that.
Are women really a minority in the US?
(Whoever wins, i’m sure you guys couldn’t do any worse than the last two elections.)
Economy in a drag?? Did not the stock market just go over 14000 for the first time…Are we not still creating jobs by the boat load…Is unemployment still down near record lows.
Unwinnable war??? Last I checked we were winning…the troop surge is working, even the democrats were admitting that a week or so ago.
Laughing stock as president??? Ask the terrorists how much they are laughing…oh, wait, you can’t find them because they are all hiding in fear for their lives.
Civil and human rights regressed? Which rights would these be…I assume you mean limits on same-sex marriage and partial birth abortions. This is simply a preposterous comment. The only civil and human rights that are under attack in our country today is that of the practicing Christian.
“Even if she did, it’d be better than his Trigger Happy “Repubnukans” who if elected another four years will end up blowing up half the world and creating 10000% more terrorists than existed at the dawn of the new millennium.” - Rhuiden = One substanceless remark; Chris W = Two substanceless remarks.
The Constitution only limits powers and implements various things if you believe that it is actually to be followed. The problem is that too many of our elected leaders do not and will not accept what it says and will turn to the activist judges to implement their agenda. These people believe the Constitution is a “living breathing” document. I wonder what they would do if the person who actually writes their paychecks told them that their paychecks were living breathing documents???
Wow!!!
True. You could make an encyclopedia of all the instances where the constitution, as written, has been violated, as well as wildly interpreted. But the Constitution has been able to assure that the President of the United States has less power within the United States government than most head-of-states within their own governments (the exception being outright puppets, in which case, their puppet-masters have considerable power within their governments).
LOL. Where do you get your information from? Bigotry Today? The Biased Post? Delusioned Daily? Oh, and I love your hand-waving of oppression as “preposterous”. Yeah, a country where the majority of people in power are Christian are most certainly under attack! By whom? The people in power are Christians, remember?
Go read some real news sometime.
“Even if she did, it’d be better than his Trigger Happy “Repubnukans” who if elected another four years will end up blowing up half the world and creating 10000% more terrorists than existed at the dawn of the new millennium.” - Rhuiden = One substanceless remark; Chris W = Two substanceless remarks.
Given the fact that terrorism has grown, terrorists attacks have become more frequent, and hatred against the US is higher than ever, my remarks can be fully evidenced, while yours are a matter of delusion.
Until you read some real news, or familiarize yourself with the real world, good day.
Please suggest some places where I can find some real news. I get the majority of my news from talk radio programs and some from news outlets on the internet like The Drudge Report…where do you get yours?
I am sorry, I think you have your facts wrong or at least incomplete. It is true that the majority of the people in this country claim to be Christians. The last poll I saw said 85-90%. The problem is that it is only a claim. Only about 20% of those who claim to be Christians actually live their life in accordance with Biblical principals. I think this is also confirmed in those who are in power. Most claim to be Christian while they are campaigning but once elected they do not govern in a way consistent with their so-called Christian beliefs. So…which do we believe: their actions or their words? Lastly, if you don’t believe that the right of Christians to practice their religion is under attack in this country then you have not been paying attention for the last 40 years.
Please provide some of this evidence…I would be interested in examining it.
How about beloved George H. W. Bush saying that atheists cannot be patriots, and according to the latest polls most Americans would vote for a gay Muslim before they would vote for an atheist.
What shred of evidence is there for Christians not being able to practice their belief? Or do you mean the “right” for Christians to shove their beliefs down the throats of others?
Read the BBC.
You can always tell a political discussion by a bunch of classics students because it’s more likely than usual to be full of rhetorical nonsense. This isn’t direct at anyone in particular.
When and where did Bush make the atheist comment? I don’t remember it.
Also, have you not noticed what the ACLU has been doing for many, many years. If you are a Christian and you try to practice of display your beliefs in public then they are quick to come and file a lawsuit because someone might be offended. Now, on the other hand if some other religion wants to practice their religion in public, the ACLU will file lawsuits in order to help them do it…seems like a double standard to me.
“Read the BBC”…LOL, are you serious? Being a foreign news agency I am sure they have no bias in covering what happens here…
[/b]
Ouch!!!
Those were my toes you just stepped on.
LOL
Google it.
Also, have you not noticed what the ACLU has been doing for many, many years. If you are a Christian and you try to practice of display your beliefs in public then they are quick to come and file a lawsuit because someone > might > be offended. Now, on the other hand if some other religion wants to practice their religion in public, the ACLU will file lawsuits in order to help them do it…seems like a double standard to me.
LOL!? ACLU only files a lawsuit where a gov’t official or officially sanctioned office promotes their religion ex officio. You as a private citizen are free to go in the middle of the street and pray. There is no law against it, and there has never been any sort of lawsuit against the sort. You listen to too much trash radio, probably Rush “I’m a drug addict” Limbaugh.
“Read the BBC”…LOL, are you serious? Being a foreign news agency I am sure they have no bias in covering what happens here…
Yawn. Delusion at its best. “oh noes, help i’m being oppressed and the all the news is biased!”
LOL. Conspiracy theory - meet delusional Christian. Delusional Christian - meet conspiracy theory. Have fun.
And you are calling me delusional!! Let a private citizen (a student) who is making a speech at a graduation ceremony try to mention Jesus and see what happens. First they are probably told that they can’t - Why? Because someone might get offended and call the ACLU who would then file a lawsuit. Any person with any common sense would know that the schools system or local government was not advocating Christianity just because one speaker chose to mention Jesus. Also, in many places the people have stopped praying before the high school football games - Why? Because someone might get offended and call the ACLU who would then file a lawsuit. Neither of these are example of government officials using their office to promote their religion.
Please name one unbiased news organization. The trick is to know what their bias is and listen to them with that information in mind.
Well, there you go. If cweb says it, it must be so. I’d go ahead and agree with him before he starts using latin to insult your mentula…
LOL
Odd. I see it happening all the time. When was the last time you went to a graduation ceremony where Jesus wasn’t allowed to be mentioned?
First they are probably told that they can’t - Why? Because someone might get offended and call the ACLU who would then file a lawsuit.
This shows just how ignorant you are of the ACLU. The ACLU doesn’t sue over “being offended” - I’m offended at your stupidity. The ACLU sues when government officials breach the establishment clause.
Also, in many places the people have stopped praying before the high school football games - Why? Because someone might get offended and call the ACLU who would then file a lawsuit.
No, because schools are official government entities, and thus are prohibited from establishing religion.
Neither of these are example of government officials using their office to promote their religion.
A government entity (school) establishing religion (leading the school in religious prayer) is prohibited by the constitution.
Please name one unbiased news organization. The trick is to know what their bias is and listen to them with that information in mind.
Yes. And prithee, what is BBC’s bias? What is Rush “I’m addicted to pills, and I need help, but all the other addicts need to go to jail” Limbaugh’s bias? Here’s a helpful hint - one’s news, the other is ignorant commentary.
Pedicabo…nah, fuck it. You aren’t worth the trouble.