Vikings: That's part of it (probably a huge part) and then there's the fact that he's not far left enough for them. Now that's scary. I didn't think there was farther left to go!

Artful Dodger: hmmmmm, why is the far left lashing out at the messiah? hmmmmmmm

simple, it's an election year and they know that bama is a failed president

Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

He was told that it wasn't in his best interest to debate. This after much hoopla by Cameron. Even with two scientists by his side, Cameron chickened out at the last minute. That's because they myth of man-made global warming cannot be defended..

Latest Gallop poll" Bush ahead of Obama in favorability.

Bernice:

hmmmmm, why is the far left lashing out at the messiah? hmmmmmmm

There seems to be some serious infighting in the liberal party.

Artful Dodger: agreed...."about making a lot of sense" (too scared to say otherwise)

Bernice: She'll read my finer points because I make a lot of sense - if I do say so myself.

Ferris Bueller: you're not concerned with such huge national debt? Eventually there will be 2 billions in interest alone every single day. You ok with that?

I don't care if it's Dems or Repubs, these irresponsible representatives need to get out of office and we need to put in those that will curb spending and limit government power. And Yes, Bush was a failure at curbing spending.

Artful Dodger: ""This is my last response to you""

don;'t worry, she told me that also

Artful Dodger:   a lot of speculation about what will happen in worse case scenarios.

The National debt, from Washington to Bush is 5 trillion dollars. This took place over 2 CENTURIES. But, Obama will double that in 5 YEARS!!! He's doubling the government. And taxes will increase to pay for it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vczpvxYfbA8&feature=player_embedded

Tuesday: does that mean we're not going to Prom together?

lol, Tuesday why did you delete all your posts? Especially the ones where you were insulting? hmmmmmm



Maybe next time you post something that is supposed to represent your position on a matter you'll bother to first understand what it is you are supporting. That way, you can defend your post if challenged. Just saying.....

(and you won't have to delete it all when you are shown to be wrong)

Tuesday: Depends on what you mean by the word "know."

Tuesday:

Tuesday: Two new insults from the insult complainer.

**which she has now deleted

Tuesday said: ""He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists."

Tuesday said:Would you put them backout in society?"

**It's not going to happen. No society that's civilized will castrate offenders. But it's not a bad idea. Then I'd lock them up for life.

Tuesday said:" What if someone is wrongly accused like an exes spite case..better cut off their hands too if rightly accused cuz they will use something else."

**A silly response. It's not going to happen. But I've seen the after effects of abuse and it's a life-long sentence for the victims. I don't have much sympathy for pedophiles and have no sympathy for "rehabilitation."

Tuesday said:"Let's get rid property taxes too, you wouldn't get a pay check."

**I never made that suggestion and wouldn't. And it's a lame connection to a teacher paycheck. All public employees deserve to be compensated for their work.

""I'd bet you don't even know the original purpose of the Constitutional principle of birthright".

Tuesday said:Try to have a debate without insulting. I know it's difficult for you. I didn't write this I posted it."

**You say to try to debate without insulting, and follow it by an insult.

**Let me rephrase it: I KNOW you DON'T even have a clue regarding the original purpose of constitutional behind the 14th.

Recess appointments. Obama uses this privilege (abuses it really) dishonestly.

Pedro Martínez: I think that's why it's a good idea to look at the current law, adjust it so that it can't be exploited by those who do so illegally, and at the same time, consider all the possible scenarios and find language that covers those clearly. My attitude is that someone seeking to legally enter the US, if they have a child here (before they are granted citizenship) that child should be automatically given citizenship. However, anyone who enters the US illegally, and have a child while here, that child is NOT granted automatic citizenship. Visitors to the US, if they have a child while visiting, do not get citizenship for that child. It's for people who are here legally with intentions of seeking citizenship themselves. Those on worker programs here legally but living in another country, should also not be granted citizenship to their children born here. The Republican party is right on in looking at amending the 14th. Clearly, the 14th's original purpose is being abused and Democrats are looking the other way (because it means votes for them - they don't really care about the people - ultimately they only care about remaining in power.

Artful Dodger: The idea is not bad, no doubt about it, but this would mean a significant breakthrough in the international law as we know it. The entire conflict-of-law area would have to be revised. Say, for example, that a child born in a particular country would become a national of that country only if its mother was not an illegal alien. But then – what nationality would the child have? The one of its mother? The one of the country from which the mother came to the country where the child was born? I am not against reconsidering the current system, but it would cause lots of problems.

Tuesday: Democrats ONLY want birthright for one reason: Votes. They don't care about he abuse that's going on. As long as they can retain power, that's all they care about.

The 14th amendment was NEVER intended for anchor babies. I fully support the change the Republicans are trying to make. YOU on the other hand seem fine about supporting fraud.

The purpose and REASON for the 14th: The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

It was NOT so that people could cross the boarder illeaglly (a word Dems don't understand) have their baby (at taxpayer's expense) and then USE THAT CHILD A AND EXCUSE TO STAY IN THE US!.

This is NOT the intention of the 14th. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

It makes complete sense to take a look at this amendment and close the "loophole" whereby those that cross the border illegally FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEIR BABY INSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE US will NOT be granted citizenship for their child. Those here illegally, who break our LAWS (democrats have trouble with that concept) should NOT be granted citizenship. They should be sent back to their own country. Do it legally or get sent back. We have laws, obey them or leave.

You liberals have a problem with that concept.

Tuesday: They already have this. What the libs means is that people like me, who work hard, (and my home is PAID FOR) should have our money STOLEN FROM US so that some lazy welfare ground feeder can get a free or reduced house. BS

Did you know that the Bible says that if you won't work you shouldn't be fed? Newsflash: you have to contribute or you should go without!

Tuesday: Which means they can CHANCE IT TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE !

Tuesday: I hope it gets through. I'd bet you don't even know the original purpose of the Constitutional principle of birthright.

Tuesday: "He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship,"
A good idea.

" federal income taxes"

They need to change

" and direct election of senators,"

We didn't elect senators directly until Congress changed it. He just wants to go back to the way the Founders set it up.

"He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists."

WithOUT a local. AND, I'll throw in a pound of salt in that wound.

Übergeek 바둑이: this is that to which I don't agree.

Bernice:the current topic is relevant to to current events and therefore relevant to this board, as long as it does not get personal it is allowed, you are always welcome to not read the board for a few days

Artful Dodger:

> I don't agree.

You would disagree even with the Old Testament? I am not making up the story of Ishmael. It is in Genesis!

I thought this was the POLITICS board

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues

Im sick of having religion shoved down my throat in here, along with the abortion issue.....lets stick to politics as the headline suggests please.

Artful Dodger:

> Who can really understand God? But as I understand it, the Spirit is personal, distinct from God the Father, but ONE with the Father.
> The Spirit IS God as God is God as Jesus is God. The Spirit is the second Person of the Trinity.

This is an interpretation of the Gospels. When John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, Jesus comes out of the water and Heaven opens. There descends a dove, and a voice from Heaven says "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

The interpretation is that the voice is God as the Father, the dove is God as the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is God as the Son.

This is God's miracle. He can be three beings at the same time. Thereby God shows that He has a power beyond that of a human being. Only God can be father and son at the same time. In other words, God creates himself, and manifests himself spiritually, without the physical limitations of a human being.

Of course, this is a matter of faith. Moslems do not see Jesus as the Son of God. As this Arab I met years ago told me. "Why should God need a son? If God wants to do something, He does it himself. He needs nobody else."

I suppose faith is a tricky thing, particularly since there is no solid historical proof that Jesus or John the Baptist existed. Belief in the Holy Trinity is entirely a matter of faith.

Tuesday: I don't agree.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's simply not the case that they are the same. But there is no point going over it with you again.

Artful Dodger:

> Christians don't claim that the God of the Jews isn't the same ONE as the God of the Christians. They are the same.

You said that Moslems have a different god. The point I am trying to make is that Moslems do worship the same God, not only that, but Zoroastrianism predates Judaism and it also worshiped the same monotheistic God.

Of course, Genesis says clearly that Abraham had a son with Hagar, Sarah's handmaiden. This son was called Ishmael and was the father of race today identified with the "northern Arabs". Arabs consider themselves Abraham's descendants too. Thise just merely points to a common origin for all Semitic people's of Asia Minor.

Jim Dandy: Nothing like that at all.

Artful Dodger: kinda like the congress, senate and President with the same amount of gridlock

Jim Dandy: Who can really understand God? But as I understand it, the Spirit is personal, distinct from God the Father, but ONE with the Father. The Spirit IS God as God is God as Jesus is God. The Spirit is the second Person of the Trinity.

Artful Dodger: Who's the "holy ghost"?

I know the "father" is the shared between Jews and Christian "God", the "son" is Jesus, but who is the Ghost?

Übergeek 바둑이: Christians don't claim that the God of the Jews isn't the same ONE as the God of the Christians. They are the same.

Jesus was a Jew. He was born a Jew and he died a Jew. Christianity as such did not exist until Saitn Paul reinterpreted the death of Jesus as the salvation of mankind from the Original Sin that all human beings inherited from Adam. Thus, both Judaism and Christianity worship the same God. Of course both religions are very different since Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah, although it did have four in the past in the forms of Moses, David, Solomon and Darius the Great (he is called a Messiah in the Old Testament even though he was a Zoroastrian Persian).

Islam arose later, out of Judaic and Christian beliefs among Arabs. The Prophet Mohammed reinterpreted both the Old and New Testaments. In his view (or rather that of Moslem scholars through the Middle Ages) Jesus was a prophet, but not the Son of God. All of the prophets of the Jews are also the prophets of Islam, and Islam also acknowledges Abraham as the first true prophet.

To say that the religions worship different Gods is wishful thinking. It is the desire to set each other apart, and it is born out of prejudice and fear. "There is no way my Christian God is the same as the Islamic God or the Jew God." It might appeal to those who are prejudiced and ignorant.

Of course, the first monotheistic religion was Zoroastrianism. The Chaldean civilization was an offshoot of the Babilonian civilization, and Abraham was a Chaldean. As such he would have been aware of Zoroastrian monotheism, and Genesis clearly points in some passages to the existence of other monotheistic tribes in ancient Judea.

Of course, it was the Zoroastrians who first personified good as God (Ahura Mazda) and evil as the Devil (Ariman). According to the Zend Avesta their epic war was waged for eons. Zoroaster predates Abraham by about 400 years, but neither Jews nor Christians nor Moslems acknowledge Zoroastrianism because that was the religion of the Persians, one of the dominant empires of antiquity.

Jim Dandy: And that makes you an expert.

Artful Dodger: cuz I've watched him on God's news network many times

Jim Dandy: And you know this how?

(V): Forget about names. It doesn't matter what the Arabic word for “God” is. Take bread as an analogy. Go to a store in the UK and ask for a loaf of bread. Then do the same thing in the Czech Republic (using the Czech word for bread) and see what you get. Two different things.