Ron Paul responses in the sept 5th GOP debate [Archive]

View Full Version : Ron Paul responses in the sept 5th GOP debate

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 04:11 PM

If weren't able to see it, you can view it on youtube here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=herUw6FX4MI)

I think it was a solid performance on his side, but hardly from Fox News. Their spin was obvious. And this is coming from someone that used to enjoy this so-called news channel. The moderators continually kept taking shots at him as if it was their intention to humiliate him. None of the candidates were asked such an offensive and ridiculous question as the one given to him about the war. ("You're basically saying we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda?"). Luckily the congressman handled it well.

I also found Hannity's frustrations towards the text messaging polls to be annoying. Ron Paul was clearly the winner in the poll, but he kept invalidating the statistics by saying "There goes the Paul supporters voting multiple times", when in fact, it was technically impossible to as it tracked your phone number prohibiting you from voting twice.

But I'd have to say that what really upset me, was the giggling that was going on as Ron Paul was asked these questions. I'm no sure who it was, but most say it was Rudy and Mr. bright smile, John Kerry of republicans, Romney. This was by far, the most unprofessional and disrespectful action taken by any in an official debate. I wouldn't even think it funny if Bush had done it to Gore, or vise versa. Even if Ron Paul had done this, I would have lost all respect for him. It's jackassery at its finest.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2145/fauxnewsdd5.jpg

Evanescence

09-06-2007, 04:28 PM

Andi

09-06-2007, 04:34 PM

Thanks for the link. I did not see it on TV but did watch the youtube.com video.

I am a supporter of Ron. I think he has the best to offer out of those in that debate.

I was appalled by the way he was addressed by the officials there as well as the laughing and mockery going on by the other candidates.

You said it best WeaselInYerFoot.....It's jackassery at its finest.

On the rolleyes meter, I give it a 10

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Valpo

09-06-2007, 04:53 PM

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 05:26 PM

No wonder....he goes aginst the standard crooks in DC....against the grain. Hannity is complete idiot and a farce, so is Fox News or anyone affilated with them. Biased news to the extreme.

Ron Paul may not have a chance, cause he's too honest and has a lack of money....but he might be the best.

Guilianni is a fraud...

Fox News is the only news channel I watch...I'd like to see you call me a complete idiot.

Maybe I'm just sick of CNN and every other news channel trying to force its liberal views on me.

As far as Ron Paul goes, him saying the airlines should have responsibility about guns is idiotic. I don't want to trust an airline with my safety...the government has to be in the picture to keep the airlines honest. The airlines are a business trying to make money...I don't want a business concerned only with making money solely in charge of my safety...there has to be government regulations.

Next question was about the war. Ron Paul can not seriously stand there and with a straight face say there won't be a bloodbath when we pull out...there will be absolute chaos. He sounds like another candidate running on the anti-Bush platform. He also sounds like he was against going into Afghanistan, which is completely idiotic because THEY attack US. At least George Bush had the...you know what...to go after the people who killed 3,000 of our brothers and sisters so that it wouldn't happen again...and you know what? It hasn't, thanks to George W. Bush. He talked about defending the country, well how are you going to do that if we "mind our own business"? On 9/11 we were minding our own business when Islamic terrorists threw a sucker punch and killed our people. You can't just act like nothing's wrong, and you can't stay completely out of foreign policy like he's saying. If a dictator was committing mass genocide, like Hitler's Germany, we should be ready to go in and put an end to it like we did in WW2. Ron Paul doesn't sound like he has the guts to do that.

By the way, the question about taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda is dead right. Al Qaeda attacked us...and Ron Paul wants to sit back and do nothing! He says we invaded...Al Qaeda invaded us by killing innocent people, God's children! Ron Paul then contradicts himself by saying he takes his marching orders from international law...I thought he wanted the U.S. to mind its business? Why take orders from other nations then? It doesn't make any sense. He completely contradicted himself...if I was Rudy and Mitt, I would be laughing even harder than they were.

I liked Huckabee's response. Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand that our troops believe in this cause...you talk to most troops, and they will tell you they believe in this. He doesn't care what the troops think, and he doesn't take the time to understand. 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq...and he wants to concede defeat and run? Those 4,000 troops...he's saying they died in vain, that it doesn't matter the sacrifice they made. My face is turning red.

Notice Huckabee got overwhelming cheers when he made Ron Paul look like a complete moron. Then Ron Paul says we're losing elections because of foreign policy...we're losing elections because of the destruction of morals in our country and the propaganda that the liberal media is overwhelming Americans who don't know any better with. Huckabee is right, just because we're losing elections doesn't mean we should lose our integrity and our morals. Notice again Huckabee gets overwhelming cheers, almost to the point of standing ovation. Then Ron Paul says we've lost 5,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq...you know how many people we lost in an attack from Al Qaeda? 3,000 innocent civilians. Troops know that they could die when they sign up...3,000 innocent civilians unexpectedly lost their lives...kids suddenly lost their parents. We only attacked because we were attacked. It was in self-defense, and I wish we could get back to the patriotism that everyone showed after 9/11 when we told our president with one voice: "Go get 'em."

Notice Ron Paul got booed after that. I'm not surprised they were laughing at Ron Paul talking about eliminating the IRS, CIA, Homeland Security, Federal Reserve, Medicare, you name it. That is absolutely ridiculous. Especially Medicare...there are people who need that!

I thought it was a little silly to take out the scenario mentioned and putting their own spin on it, whoever made the video, but anyways his answer is idiotic. Back off? Iran is the country threatening to destroy God's chosen people and the Promised Land. Iran is the country with a president who wants to bring about Armageddon so supposedly the Islamic messiah will come. Iran is the country who named America as one of it's 2 main enemies, along with Israel. Iran is the country funding Hezbollah, the terrorist organization killing thousands of Jews and such in Israel every year. Iran is the country offering a safe haven for terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and pumping weapons and money into the insurgents' pockets so that America will fail in Iraq. Iran is the main part of the problem...and now they are seeking nuclear weapons. You can't "back off" and "talk" to Iran like Ron Paul is saying...you have to confront them sternly and let them know we are not going to be bullied by some mentally ill person who just so happens to be the president of Iran and who's main desire is to wipe God's people off the map and bring about the end of the world. You have to be plain stupid to think that Iran is not a threat. For him to say Israel can handle themselves...are you kidding me? All it takes is one nuclear missile in a pre-emptive strike from Iran and it's over! He talks about Iran is cooperating...well we thought Saddam was cooperating and then he kicked the nuclear inspectors out of the country!

Ron Paul sounds like he's going to create a survival of the fittest society...he doesn't seem too interested in helping people who need it...there has to be government because of the many flaws society has. Don't be fooled by the cheers Paul got...Huckabee got louder cheers and no one even knows who he is.

Valpo

09-06-2007, 05:41 PM

i watch cnn and foxnews....i think msnbc is a complete joke of a newstation

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 06:15 PM

How is Rudy a fraud merely because he disagrees with Paul? For example, I appreciate Paul's no nonsense no BS take, but I certainly do not agree with him on most things he says. Ron Paul things we should just pull completely out of foreign affairs, although when George Washington said it we should have taken that advice at that time, this is simply not practical because we are, for better or worse and some could legitimately argue for worse, in too deep with foreign alliances/affairs. So the question becomes who is best suited to deal with this reality and who has the most practical plan. I do not believe Ron Paul's answers of just pulling out of everywhere is practical. We should have taken Washington's advice in his farewell address, but Jefferson didn't and here we are today. The assumptions are made that Romney and Rudy snickered at Paul, but no one knows this for sure. And if they did it is stupid to laugh at an opponents response, but laughing at ones opponent does not validate the opponent they laughed at or invalidate the person doing the laughing.

As fas as I'm concerned, there's two ways we could go when it comes to our country. Realistically, I doubt RP can actually do what he wants done in his first term, perhaps not even second term if he was ever elected. However, we can either choose to put someone in office who may perhaps get the ball rolling and prevent government from getting bigger and gradually decrease spending, or we can put someone in office who will let government steadily grow and invade our lives.

I too find it unrealistic to pull out of every country we're involved with. But RP can at least put a stop to new proposals and pull out of half of these if possible. His principals are what matter in this case. I also doubt that we'll pull out of Iraq in a week as most people think he'd do. But his idea is that there should Iraqi policemen patrolling the streets, not our soldiers. Therefore forcing the Iraqi government to get their acts together, make their decisions quickly and let us move on. We pulled out of Vietnam in a rather adrupt way and they're doing fine now. But I'll admit, this is a different scenario.

Before WWII our foreign policy on aggression was that we wouldn't get involved in any affairs unless it included us. This should have remained as such. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor, we jumped into the dogfight, and properly went by the constitutional process to do so. However, Iraq was never decided in congress, as it had nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorists. We've received threats from numerous countries, but had never taken action. We had more threatening countries than Iraq on our plate, not to mention the number one man on our list still running around, and yet we panicked and freaked about a third world country that didn't even have a navy? for what? I have a brother who is dealing with PTSD because of it. Not that I want to bring emotion into this, but I'd like to think that his and other's sacrifices were for a very good cause, but I can't find a single one when it comes to Iraq. Sure, Sadam was a monster. This is true. But there's worse out there and they're running countries that hold a third of the world's population.

But I agree, we should have listened to Washington, and it's nearly impossible to correct this mistake now, but we can at least stop it from getting worse.

As fas as Rudy goes, read about New York's District Improvement Businesses (http://www.nyc.gov/html/sbs/html/neighborhood/bid.shtml). Basically, the city's crime and appearance was so bad under Rudy, that large and small businesses in the area got together and hired their own security and sanitation people. Yet Rudy boasts about how crime rates have fallen etc. and at the same time he cut taxes. There's a lot of dirt on Rudy that's not hard to find. But I will say that the whole cross-dressing thing shouldn't be an issue. If he likes to cross dress, I don't care. A person can still be a good leader. We're all human. Laura Ingraham was the one who said that Rudy giggled. I read on ronpaulforums.com that Romney joined in on the LOLing when the elimination of the CIA was asked about. Granted, I'll take it back since I wouldn't consider the forums as reliable information. Sorry about that.

But here's my problem with the Government and the way it's heading. I can't help but worry that when I call my parents in Colombia (They're missionaries) to talk to my father about personal concerns, worries, things that should only be known by me and those choose to share them with carry the possibility of unknowingly being recorded and at any time. I don't care who they are, or how much "protection" they tell me I will have thanks to their invasion, I do not want to share my personal stuff with some agent in DC. Chances are they'll never never wiretap my calls, but what about others? We are giving up our liberties because we think that the bad guys are out to get us for our freedoms! this isn't true. This rhetoric doesn't even make sense! They hate us because of our freedom?? it's because we got involved in their affairs. But I'm just ranting now so I'll stop :D.

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 06:21 PM

Before WWII our foreign policy on aggression was that we wouldn't get involved in any affairs unless it included us. This should have remained as such. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor, we jumped into the dogfight, and properly went by the constitutional process to do so.

Hitler's mass genocide of Jews not a worthy cause for entering a war?

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 06:21 PM

By the way, the question about taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda is dead right. Al Qaeda attacked us...and Ron Paul wants to sit back and do nothing!

Al Qaeda was dealt with in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with them, and the process by which we started this war is what he stands against.

I liked Huckabee's response. Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand that our troops believe in this cause...you talk to most troops, and they will tell you they believe in this.

Then why is Ron Paul the #1 candidate receiving donations from the military?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ
The source to that is somewhere in the first half of that video.

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 06:29 PM

Al Qaeda was dealt with in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with them, and the process by which we started this war is what he stands against.

In the first video he said something about we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 06:30 PM

Hitler's mass genocide of Jews not a worthy cause for entering a war?

If we're going to make the prevention of genocide a formal policy, then let's do so. But we can't justify the prevention of a genocide in Europe (as it was indeed, tragic) while ignoring Africa with stuff like Darfur.

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 06:31 PM

If we're going to make the prevention of genocide a formal policy, then let's do so. But we can't justify the prevention of a genocide in Europe (as it was indeed, tragic) while ignoring Africa with stuff like Darfur.

We should help Darfur, but Hitler was on the verge of taking over all of Europe...I think Hitler was a little more of a threat.

Jesuslove

09-06-2007, 06:35 PM

Hitler's mass genocide of Jews not a worthy cause for entering a war?

There's a big difference between Hitler's slaughter of the Jews and Bush's invasion of Iraq.... Well, on second thought, maybe there's not that big a difference.

Jesuslove

09-06-2007, 06:36 PM

Of the Republicans, I like Paul. I think he's refreshing. He's good some fresh, good ideas.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 06:38 PM

In the first video he said something about we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.
He said we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan in the matter we did. The process by which we did was illegal. It something to the lines of "Declare war if you want to, then go to war and win it but don't go into for political reasons..."

video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9GkpwFY5Mw

You can read more on it, in his own words here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul16.html)

mat1583

09-06-2007, 06:48 PM

Fox News is the only news channel I watch...I'd like to see you call me a complete idiot.

Maybe not idiotic, but certainly not the most open minded.

As far as Ron Paul goes, him saying the airlines should have responsibility about guns is idiotic. I don't want to trust an airline with my safety...the government has to be in the picture to keep the airlines honest. The airlines are a business trying to make money...I don't want a business concerned only with making money solely in charge of my safety...there has to be government regulations.

Every used any electronics? then you trust a private business called Underwriter Laboratories (http://www.ul.com/) to ensure that all electronics not only meet federal guidelines, but exceed them by a great measure.

Have you ever been on a roller coaster at an amusement park? I'm sure you want to feel safe on those, correct? Guess who inspects roller coaster? The businesses themselves that run the amusement parks! Check out this article about roller coaster safety:

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the government agency that regulates everything in the lives of United States citizens, states that the industry is governing itself and the infrequence of accidents (averaging less than 3500 or 6200 or 7000 per year depending on the source) and fatalities (an average of two per year according to all sources) means that the industry is doing a good job. The agency cites the fact that trampolines and skateboards are a far greater risk to consumers."

http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/rollercoasters_ttyf.htm

You mean that a private business can govern itself when dealing with the safety of the people that use their machines? whoaaaaaa!

Next question was about the war. Ron Paul can not seriously stand there and with a straight face say there won't be a bloodbath when we pull out...
Even if there were a bloodbath, at least it won't be our soldiers in there fighting in the middle of a civil war! How can you stand there with a straight face and say that we should keep our soldiers in there fighting a war for which we did not declare, fighting on false premises, and in the middle of a civil war that has nothing to do with us?

By the way, the question about taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda is dead right. Al Qaeda attacked us...and Ron Paul wants to sit back and do nothing! He says we invaded...Al Qaeda invaded us by killing innocent people, God's children! Ron Paul then contradicts himself by saying he takes his marching orders from international law...

The question was asked in regards to the Iraqi war and had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Before we invaded Iraq on the bases of false intelligence reports, there was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq! It was only after we destroyed the Iraqi government and disbanded the Iraqi Army that terrorists saw the chance to get their hands in the mess.

I liked Huckabee's response. Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand that our troops believe in this cause...you talk to most troops, and they will tell you they believe in this.

Have you ever considered that the cause of the 'war' is wrong?

He doesn't care what the troops think, and he doesn't take the time to understand. 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq...and he wants to concede defeat and run?

Do you think that no matter how bad we are losing, how much of taxpayers' money we are spending that we should always stay in? To the very last person? We tried that with Vietnam and look where it got us. Thankfully someone was smart enough to finally get us out of there. Do we have to repeat history?

Notice Huckabee got overwhelming cheers when he made Ron Paul look like a complete moron.

Huckabee's response is that we made a mistake, and that we should keep fighting for that mistake with a terrible strategy. How does that make Dr. Paul look like a moron?

Then Ron Paul says we're losing elections because of foreign policy...we're losing elections because of the destruction of morals in our country and the propaganda that the liberal media is overwhelming Americans who don't know any better with. Huckabee is right, just because we're losing elections doesn't mean we should lose our integrity and our morals.
Enforcing Christian morals on a nation of unbelievers by coercion and gunpoint is NOT the way to turn people towards morality. It does the exact opposite. Our government and political leaders should not be to blame for the immorality in this nation. We as Christians should be to blame! We as Christians should work together to witness to people as Christ did...to show them how to live a Godly life...not force them to by gunpoint.

Notice again Huckabee gets overwhelming cheers, almost to the point of standing ovation. Then Ron Paul says we've lost 5,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq...you know how many people we lost in an attack from Al Qaeda? 3,000 innocent civilians. Troops know that they could die when they sign up...3,000 innocent civilians unexpectedly lost their lives...kids suddenly lost their parents. We only attacked because we were attacked. It was in self-defense, and I wish we could get back to the patriotism that everyone showed after 9/11 when we told our president with one voice: "Go get 'em."

The problem is that we went into Afghanistan to destroy Al Quaeda, then we changed the foreign policy and started trying nation building. We didn't go into Iraq because of Al Queda. Bush invaded because he had bad intelligence...and after we destroyed the Iraqi Army and got Sadam, we got into the business of nation building. It has failed completely, yet some people still say we should be there trying to create a democracy while they are all in the middle of a civil war.

Notice Ron Paul got booed after that. I'm not surprised they were laughing at Ron Paul talking about eliminating the IRS, CIA, Homeland Security, Federal Reserve, Medicare, you name it. That is absolutely ridiculous. Especially Medicare...there are people who need that!

And there are also millions of churches that could help provide funds for the poor, the homeless, the needy, the sick...yet we sit back and guard our money because the government is already stealing thousands of dollars from us through the Income Tax. I can guarantee you that I would probably tithe nearly twice as much as I do now if so much wasn't already being taken out of my paycheck.

I thought it was a little silly to take out the scenario mentioned and putting their own spin on it, whoever made the video, but anyways his answer is idiotic. Back off? Iran is the country threatening to destroy God's chosen people and the Promised Land. Iran is the country with a president who wants to bring about Armageddon so supposedly the Islamic messiah will come. Iran is the country who named America as one of it's 2 main enemies, along with Israel. Iran is the country funding Hezbollah, the terrorist organization killing thousands of Jews and such in Israel every year. Iran is the country offering a safe haven for terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and pumping weapons and money into the insurgents' pockets so that America will fail in Iraq. Iran is the main part of the problem...and now they are seeking nuclear weapons. You can't "back off" and "talk" to Iran like Ron Paul is saying...you have to confront them sternly and let them know we are not going to be bullied by some mentally ill person who just so happens to be the president of Iran and who's main desire is to wipe God's people off the map and bring about the end of the world. You have to be plain stupid to think that Iran is not a threat. For him to say Israel can handle themselves...are you kidding me? All it takes is one nuclear missile in a pre-emptive strike from Iran and it's over! He talks about Iran is cooperating...well we thought Saddam was cooperating and then he kicked the nuclear inspectors out of the country!

All it takes is one preemptive nuclear strike from the US to start the same exact Armageddon.

Ron Paul sounds like he's going to create a survival of the fittest society...he doesn't seem too interested in helping people who need it...there has to be government because of the many flaws society has. Don't be fooled by the cheers Paul got...Huckabee got louder cheers and no one even knows who he is.

RP is not an anarchist and never will be. He's believes in the Constitution and the government that was created by our founding fathers...not this bureaucratic mess we have today...not the expansion of powers of the government.

-washboard

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 07:06 PM

Maybe not idiotic, but certainly not the most open minded.

I didn't say I had never watched anything besides Fox News, but I have found most other news outlets put a liberal slant on things.

Every used any electronics? then you trust a private business called Underwriter Laboratories (http://www.ul.com/) to ensure that all electronics not only meet federal guidelines, but exceed them by a great measure.

Have you ever been on a roller coaster at an amusement park? I'm sure you want to feel safe on those, correct? Guess who inspects roller coaster? The businesses themselves that run the amusement parks! Check out this article about roller coaster safety:

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the government agency that regulates everything in the lives of United States citizens, states that the industry is governing itself and the infrequence of accidents (averaging less than 3500 or 6200 or 7000 per year depending on the source) and fatalities (an average of two per year according to all sources) means that the industry is doing a good job. The agency cites the fact that trampolines and skateboards are a far greater risk to consumers."

http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/rollercoasters_ttyf.htm

You mean that a private business can govern itself when dealing with the safety of the people that use their machines? whoaaaaaa!

So you don't mind corporations (like Enron) being in charge of our security?

Even if there were a bloodbath, at least it won't be our soldiers in there fighting in the middle of a civil war! How can you stand there with a straight face and say that we should keep our soldiers in there fighting a war for which we did not declare, fighting on false premises, and in the middle of a civil war that has nothing to do with us?

We have a greater responsibility to the Iraqi people than that...if we pull out now the entire Middle East falls into chaos. Right or wrong, we started it and we can't just abandon these people in their time of need. Also, it's highly likely an even more corrupt regime would take over.

The question was asked in regards to the Iraqi war and had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Before we invaded Iraq on the bases of false intelligence reports, there was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq! It was only after we destroyed the Iraqi government and disbanded the Iraqi Army that terrorists saw the chance to get their hands in the mess.

According to Colin Powell, there were Al Qaeda terrorist cells in Iraq. If you can refute that with facts, be my guest, but you can't.

Have you ever considered that the cause of the 'war' is wrong?

Saddam Hussein kicked UN Weapons Inspectors out of the country...the same guy who used WMD's on his own people. We should've finished it in the first war...now there is one less threat to the world thanks to George W. Bush's decision.

Do you think that no matter how bad we are losing, how much of taxpayers' money we are spending that we should always stay in? To the very last person? We tried that with Vietnam and look where it got us. Thankfully someone was smart enough to finally get us out of there. Do we have to repeat history?

No, but how can you prove that things aren't improving in Iraq? Don't tell me what the liberal media has told you. A soldier who goes to our church says things aren't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be...new schools are opening, electricity and water are being restored, people now have the freedom to be who they want to be, and in the long run this will be a good thing if we stay the course.

Huckabee's response is that we made a mistake, and that we should keep fighting for that mistake with a terrible strategy. How does that make Dr. Paul look like a moron?

The overwhelming cheers of the people when Huckabee refuted Paul's claim. That's how.

Enforcing Christian morals on a nation of unbelievers by coercion and gunpoint is NOT the way to turn people towards morality. It does the exact opposite. Our government and political leaders should not be to blame for the immorality in this nation. We as Christians should be to blame! We as Christians should work together to witness to people as Christ did...to show them how to live a Godly life...not force them to by gunpoint.

You took that out of context. I said people weren't voting Republican because they've stopped believing in Christian morals and family values.

The problem is that we went into Afghanistan to destroy Al Quaeda, then we changed the foreign policy and started trying nation building. We didn't go into Iraq because of Al Queda. Bush invaded because he had bad intelligence...and after we destroyed the Iraqi Army and got Sadam, we got into the business of nation building. It has failed completely, yet some people still say we should be there trying to create a democracy while they are all in the middle of a civil war.

You can't just invade a country and leave the people to fend for theirselves, especially in such a volatile and violent situation. We haven't failed yet...stop acting like we've already lost.

And there are also millions of churches that could help provide funds for the poor, the homeless, the needy, the sick...yet we sit back and guard our money because the government is already stealing thousands of dollars from us through the Income Tax. I can guarantee you that I would probably tithe nearly twice as much as I do now if so much wasn't already being taken out of my paycheck.

Most of that money goes into things like new roads, new schools, etc. The government needs that money to provide for US. We're paying the government to provide for us. As far as churches go, there is not enough money in the church to provide for the millions of people living on Medicare and the millions more living on welfare. The government has an obligation to provide a safety net for its people.

All it takes is one preemptive nuclear strike from the US to start the same exact Armageddon.

I haven't heard anyone suggest we nuke anybody.

RP is not an anarchist and never will be. He's believes in the Constitution and the government that was created by our founding fathers...not this bureaucratic mess we have today...not the expansion of powers of the government.

-washboard

Abolishing nearly every government agency we have? Smells like anarchy to me. There's a reason why his most loyal followers are conspiracy theorists and anarchists.

Jesuslove

09-06-2007, 07:21 PM

According to Colin Powell, there were Al Qaeda terrorist cells in Iraq. If you can refute that with facts, be my guest, but you can't.

I have heard George Bush, in speeches, say that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq. Colin Powell went before the UN and provided bad intelligence. I suspect Colin Powell isn't part of the GWB administration today because he feels he was used as a pawn to defend the President's decision to invade Iraq based on the false intelligence.

Since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, Al Qaeda has entered Iraq and now they pose a threat to the stability of the region. I feel we did the right thing by going after Osama in Afghanistan, but it was a big mistake to go into Iraq.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 07:37 PM

According to Colin Powell, there were Al Qaeda terrorist cells in Iraq. If you can refute that with facts, be my guest, but you can't.

directly from Powell:

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

source (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/3212)

The connections were never certain, and has since then, never been proven.

cheewiee

09-06-2007, 07:44 PM

I have heard George Bush, in speeches, say that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq. Colin Powell went before the UN and provided bad intelligence. I suspect Colin Powell isn't part of the GWB administration today because he feels he was used as a pawn to defend the President's decision to invade Iraq based on the false intelligence.

Since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, Al Qaeda has entered Iraq and now they pose a threat to the stability of the region. I feel we did the right thing by going after Osama in Afghanistan, but it was a big mistake to go into Iraq.

Bush never said that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq, What is said, was that there was no link between Iraq and 9-11. Zarchawi (sp) was in Iraq on behalf of Bin Laden working with Hussein BEFORE 9-11.

Jesuslove

09-06-2007, 08:36 PM

Bush never said that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq, What is said, was that there was no link between Iraq and 9-11. Zarchawi (sp) was in Iraq on behalf of Bin Laden working with Hussein BEFORE 9-11.

President Bush, in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Saddam and Osama hated each other.

Valpo

09-06-2007, 08:59 PM

President Bush, in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Saddam and Osama hated each other.

Clemson is not trying to say Bush argued for a relationship btw iraq and 9/11 he's saying iraq and al-qaeda had connections prior to 9/11. This is certainly something that can be argued for. The President of the Czech Republic on multiple occasions has said he believes there is a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. This does not mean however that there was a link between saddam and osama planning 9/11 together. But it is foolish to automatically discount the notion that they may have been in conncection prior to 9/11, just because Iraq wasnt involved in 9/11.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406251321.asp

article arguing for a link between the two

in hiding

09-06-2007, 09:10 PM

Next question was about the war. Ron Paul can not seriously stand there and with a straight face say there won't be a bloodbath when we pull out...there will be absolute chaos. He sounds like another candidate running on the anti-Bush platform. He also sounds like he was against going into Afghanistan, which is completely idiotic because THEY attack US. At least George Bush had the...you know what...to go after the people who killed 3,000 of our brothers and sisters so that it wouldn't happen again...and you know what? It hasn't, thanks to George W. Bush. He talked about defending the country, well how are you going to do that if we "mind our own business"? On 9/11 we were minding our own business when Islamic terrorists threw a sucker punch and killed our people. You can't just act like nothing's wrong, and you can't stay completely out of foreign policy like he's saying. If a dictator was committing mass genocide, like Hitler's Germany, we should be ready to go in and put an end to it like we did in WW2. Ron Paul doesn't sound like he has the guts to do that.

He was in the military you know; if you listened to the debate he said that for an act of war you should have a declaration and have it not be an act of aggression...what's so hard to figure out about that. He's not a pacifist; he's one who takes war and the waging of it very seriously. Also GWB had the courage to go after people; nevermind it was the wrong people. Now, I agree that SH was a terrible dictator and he needed to be removed. If GWB had the real "you know what's" he'd deal with Saudi Arabia and put some pressure on them since 14 of the hijackers were from there. But let's not get confused by facts.

I liked Huckabee's response. Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand that our troops believe in this cause...you talk to most troops, and they will tell you they believe in this. He doesn't care what the troops think, and he doesn't take the time to understand. 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq...and he wants to concede defeat and run? Those 4,000 troops...he's saying they died in vain, that it doesn't matter the sacrifice they made. My face is turning red.

I noticed that someone else posted it as well, but why then is RP getting the most money from the troops, just a little ahead of McCain?
And so you can read what he has to say about this this article about the troops and funding et...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul365.html
Everybody Supports the Troops

by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, January 18, 2007

Notice Huckabee got overwhelming cheers when he made Ron Paul look like a complete moron. Then Ron Paul says we're losing elections because of foreign policy...we're losing elections because of the destruction of morals in our country and the propaganda that the liberal media is overwhelming Americans who don't know any better with. Huckabee is right, just because we're losing elections doesn't mean we should lose our integrity and our morals. Notice again Huckabee gets overwhelming cheers, almost to the point of standing ovation. .
that was a very good exchange b/t those 2 and i thought it was enlightening when Paul said he used the constitution to make his decisions and no one else even mentioned it. They kept saying we cant lose our integrity and morals which no one will disagree with, but they aren't basing decisions, or at least vocalizing. I like huckabee too, much better than guiliani or romney...but I wish the others in the debates would actually debate like that and really say something and get their views out.

Valpo

09-06-2007, 09:11 PM

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 09:23 PM

I think Valpo said it all.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 09:49 PM

ahh, even I got dragged into the derailing of the thread...right back to ron paul...

Weaselinfoot:

All great points you make in your post responding to mine. We just fundamentally disagree. I think by virtue of how world history has panned out that the best answer to ridding the world of terrorism and other brands of hatred is to spread liberal democracy. This is actually an idea/dream of former President Kennedy. Bush is actually a "LIBERAL" in this thinking. Whereas a guy like Paul takes the more conservative stance of not doing such things. In fact, just to go to show how much September 11th changed the view of the world for President Bush, we know he campaigned as a man who would not become involved in nation building. Infact, in a world without islamic extremism and terrorism this would be the best stance to take. But President Bush genuinely thinks (and one can fairly and justly disagree with this) that liberal democracy must be spread to curtail this movement. Movements like Islamic Extremism and Terrorism are not crushed over night and during the evening of September 11th, 2001, President Bush understood this. From day one he has said that this will be a long haul. So fundamentally speaking, although I admire Mr. Paul for his no nonsense, not taking bull stance, I just fundamentally disagree with him. I believe what we are doing now will be better for the future, however far ahead this future may be. And someone can certainly disagree with that premise. The crap I just cant stand is that Mr. Bush is some war mongering psycho path bent on world domination. I think that is absolutely uncalled for. I have zero issue with someone disagreeing with him, but this whole notion that he's some evil man is just American Politics at its finest. I may dislike Hillary Clinton and John Edwards politically, but by no means do i think they are hell bent on world domination. We live in a world where bc of some bad eggs in the past no one trusts anyone or anything, and that is frankly sad.

I know this is long, but if you ever have time, please read this. (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm)
It explains the situation better than I could ever do. I understand if you don't agree with, but you'll at least have another view that you can be aware of.

At this present moment, this is not a war on terror. It stopped being that when we invaded Afghanistan (though I'll admit, at that time I was for it, as I was for the Iraqi war when we went in). What we are fighting against are ideals. They are beliefs, and as much as we'd like to think we can fight them, it is downright impossible to change the minds of these people. Just like they can't force us to deny Christ by putting a gun to our heads (though we may give in for fear of our lives, we still believe afterwards), you can't make someone stop believing that the US is out to destroy Islam. You can't make someone change their minds by force. You can either kill them, or you can make them change their actions for a temporary time for fear of their lives. But are we honestly supposed to kill people because they hate us? A hate that comes from years of meddling in their affairs and bombing their homes for political means? Because some horny President was in the spotlight for having an affair so he decides to cover it by sending out cruise missiles? How about we prove them wrong through our actions?

clemsontigers23

09-06-2007, 09:50 PM

in hiding

09-06-2007, 10:00 PM

Once again...they attacked US. It would be irresponsible to not do anything about that.

agreed, but the idea is to do something to the right people and not by limiting the rights of US citizens. He's not saying dont do anything; he's saying do the smart thing and go after the right people with the right approach

Jesuslove

09-06-2007, 10:08 PM

Once again...they attacked US. It would be irresponsible to not do anything about that.

Iraq never attacked us. Al Qaeda did. For centuries, the US government has tried to control world affairs, whether overtly or covertly. We've meddled in others' business for too long. How could we expect others to tolerate us, let alone love us.

Jesuslove

09-06-2007, 10:14 PM

At this present moment, this is not a war on terror. It stopped being that when we invaded Afghanistan (though I'll admit, at that time I was for it, as I was for the Iraqi war when we went in). What we are fighting against are ideals. They are beliefs, and as much as we'd like to think we can fight them, it is downright impossible to change the minds of these people. Just like they can't force us to deny Christ by putting a gun to our heads (though we may give in for fear of our lives, we still believe afterwards), you can't make someone stop believing that the US is out to destroy Islam. You can't make someone change their minds by force. You can either kill them, or you can make them change their actions for a temporary time for fear of their lives. But are we honestly supposed to kill people because they hate us? A hate that comes from years of meddling in their affairs and bombing their homes for political means? Because some horny President was in the spotlight for having an affair so he decides to cover it by sending out cruise missiles? How about we prove them wrong through our actions?
You are right.. there is no war on terror. We meddled in Iraq's affairs, instead of going after the true enemy. Why didn't we put sanctions on Saudi Arabia? The majority of hijackers were Saudi. Why was there no price to be paid by the Saudis? I agree with you. you can't force people to love you. Our years of meddling got us into this mess. Clinton's actions are nowhere near as wrong as Bush's. Now that there is an election coming up, we need to look to new people with fresh ideas, including Ron Paul. Our years of meddling in other countries' affairs have cost us our reputation throughout the world. We need to take a different approach. We're not succeeding.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 10:17 PM

Once again...they attacked US. It would be irresponsible to not do anything about that.

The ones who attacked us are dead! they died in the planes. They were financed most likely by numerous people, but the feat to topple them was lost long ago when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are not 9/11 people, they are people who see our strong presence in the area as a threat. Like a guard dog, they are defending what they think is sacred, the 10-40 window.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-06-2007, 10:25 PM

Our years of meddling in other countries' affairs have cost us our reputation throughout the world. We need to take a different approach. We're not succeeding.

Not only reputation, but our economy is going down the toilet. It looks good now, and it will continue to as long the fed keeps putting money into it. But this war is draining our economy and we're not any closer to catching Bin Laden than we were in 2001. Why?

Evanescence

09-06-2007, 10:55 PM

Evanescence

09-06-2007, 10:57 PM

Not only reputation, but our economy is going down the toilet. It looks good now, and it will continue to as long the fed keeps putting money into it. But this war is draining our economy and we're not any closer to catching Bin Laden than we were in 2001. Why?

I can tell you why...:cool:

Really, think about it....why didn't we catch him years ago?

Valpo

09-06-2007, 11:04 PM

I know this is long, but if you ever have time, please read this. (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm)
It explains the situation better than I could ever do. I understand if you don't agree with, but you'll at least have another view that you can be aware of.

At this present moment, this is not a war on terror. It stopped being that when we invaded Afghanistan (though I'll admit, at that time I was for it, as I was for the Iraqi war when we went in). What we are fighting against are ideals. They are beliefs, and as much as we'd like to think we can fight them, it is downright impossible to change the minds of these people. Just like they can't force us to deny Christ by putting a gun to our heads (though we may give in for fear of our lives, we still believe afterwards), you can't make someone stop believing that the US is out to destroy Islam. You can't make someone change their minds by force. You can either kill them, or you can make them change their actions for a temporary time for fear of their lives. But are we honestly supposed to kill people because they hate us? A hate that comes from years of meddling in their affairs and bombing their homes for political means? Because some horny President was in the spotlight for having an affair so he decides to cover it by sending out cruise missiles? How about we prove them wrong through our actions?

ill certainly try to find team to read that, thanks.

And I realize this is a battle between ideals, which is why the ideology of liberal democracy is the best option for these people, although right now it doesnt look like it is. But at the same time you cant just send professors to the middle east and "teach" them why liberal democracy is better than islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, because of the way the world is war and armies are necessary to get things across. This is not to say Iraq isn't a mess, it's a complete mess, but that doesnt discredit the ideal to set up a liberal democracy in a region that desperately needs it, whether they realize it or not.

Valpo

09-06-2007, 11:08 PM

I can tell you why...:cool:

Really, think about it....why didn't we catch him years ago?

i dont know E, a conspiracy theory would lead me to believe we would have caught this clown years ago if we made him up in the first place. Had the US caught him just a few months after the attack our legitimacy and cause would have been so much stronger, so pretty stupid for a govt bent on world dominance to let some made up criminal get away. still love you though E.

Btw, for those not in conspiracy land, OBL is supposedly sending out a new tape sometime between now and the anniversary of 9/11. And another attack was foiled in Germany, but right it's just the western liberal democracies making up al-qaeda to further oppress the people... :rolleyes:

cheewiee

09-06-2007, 11:20 PM

President Bush, in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Saddam and Osama hated each other.

Were you just repeating what I had said?

cheewiee

09-06-2007, 11:22 PM

Iraq never attacked us. Al Qaeda did. For centuries, the US government has tried to control world affairs, whether overtly or covertly. We've meddled in others' business for too long. How could we expect others to tolerate us, let alone love us.

For Centuries the US Government has tried to control world affairs?

The United States has only existed for TWO centuries, and has only been powerful enough to even think about being involved in world affairs for about 1/4 of those...

cheewiee

09-06-2007, 11:24 PM

Our years of meddling got us into this mess.
First it was centuries.... now it's years... Care to make up your mind?

Evanescence

09-07-2007, 12:42 AM

i dont know E, a conspiracy theory would lead me to believe we would have caught this clown years ago if we made him up in the first place. Had the US caught him just a few months after the attack our legitimacy and cause would have been so much stronger, so pretty stupid for a govt bent on world dominance to let some made up criminal get away. still love you though E.

Btw, for those not in conspiracy land, OBL is supposedly sending out a new tape sometime between now and the anniversary of 9/11. And another attack was foiled in Germany, but right it's just the western liberal democracies making up al-qaeda to further oppress the people... :rolleyes:

Good to have you Valpo, I was starting to miss you...;)

Osama denied his part in 911 right off the bat, hust days after 911. Then all of a sudden, in Nov of 2001 he sends out another tape....with suspicious parts to it and claims he DID do it. So which is it? Many speculate that the 2nd Bin Laden tape is a fraud. Regardless, he is NOT wanted for the 911 atcks because there is NO evidence he had anything to do with it. He IS wanted and has claimed responsibility for many things, but if we're so sure he did mastermind 911, why isn't he being charged for it.

We know for a fact that he slipped away a few times. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

If indeed the USA is on target for world dominance...or to be a part of a NWO, they would want to cause a worldwide panic...and enemy. An enemy that would be illusive and NOT cause WWIII. Al Queada and OSB is just that. They can sling out warnings and grainy tapes for us to fret over and thus go to our authorities for help. Its a simple process: Chaos and control. They CREATE the chaos and we demand control. Giving up our liberties for it.

Notice that there have been NO attacks here in 7 years? You think that some sicko, islamic can't blow himself here in some market, without getting caught? Our security here isn't THAT good....its just that there is no REAL threat.

Iraq stirred them up and CREATED the threat, but even then its not really a worldwide threat. Yeah, today they caught some guys in Germany and we had the deal in Madrid and London, but again.....can you really trust those accounts? Many people in England surmise, with good info I might add, that the London bombing was a false-flagger.

I really think we're being toy'd with and manipulated. I know mind control can occur in families....so why not from our own Govt? Our media is so slanted, scripted and corrupt, its sickening.

Osama? They want him out there where he can continue to be the boogie man and keep everyone scared for their childrens safety. Then the Sheep-ple will flock to the Govt for security.

Chaos and control....what a beautiful thing...:mad:

Evanescence

09-07-2007, 12:49 AM

For Centuries the US Government has tried to control world affairs?

The United States has only existed for TWO centuries, and has only been powerful enough to even think about being involved in world affairs for about 1/4 of those...

If you study the after affects and internal affairs of this Govt after WWII, you;ll see where the quest for world dominace began. In the late 40's, the Pentagon began talking about making the US a super power and pushing herself around the world. Operation Northwoods came straight out of that line of thinking, as did the bogus cold-war.

The US has indeed been sticking its nose where it doesn't belong claiming to be this superpower and making up excuses for war. Still many people today think we ARE the policemen of the world and have every right to start wars and "disarm" and "remove people from power" even sighting the BIBLE and Christianity as a good reason why. You should see these good old boy REPS on another forum when the Bush-truth bashing starts. One guy even said that the Iraqi casualties mean nothing 'cause they aren't Christians.

Every superpower in history has fallen and my fear is that we will too. Someone is gonna get tired of our meddling and BS and they'll be real bad trouble.

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 01:19 AM

If you study the after affects and internal affairs of this Govt after WWII, you;ll see where the quest for world dominace began. In the late 40's, the Pentagon began talking about making the US a super power and pushing herself around the world. Operation Northwoods came straight out of that line of thinking, as did the bogus cold-war.

The US has indeed been sticking its nose where it doesn't belong claiming to be this superpower and making up excuses for war. Still many people today think we ARE the policemen of the world and have every right to start wars and "disarm" and "remove people from power" even sighting the BIBLE and Christianity as a good reason why. You should see these good old boy REPS on another forum when the Bush-truth bashing starts. One guy even said that the Iraqi casualties mean nothing 'cause they aren't Christians.

Every superpower in history has fallen and my fear is that we will too. Someone is gonna get tired of our meddling and BS and they'll be real bad trouble.

Using nice round figures the US is 200 years old... 1/4 of 200 years is 50... WWII happened 50 years ago.. (nice round number)

Thanks for the history lesson, but you just backed up my point..

Evanescence

09-07-2007, 01:46 AM

Using nice round figures the US is 200 years old... 1/4 of 200 years is 50... WWII happened 50 years ago.. (nice round number)

Thanks for the history lesson, but you just backed up my point..

Oh, I agree its only been in the last 50 or so years that we've been pushing this. If you look into the affairs within, during the late 40's, you can see the Paradigm shift...

However, if you look closer yet, we've been stealing land and raping minds for much longer....

And to think, some think we're blessed by God, 'cause we're a Christian nation? I dunno about that...

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 07:23 AM

Oh, I agree its only been in the last 50 or so years that we've been pushing this. If you look into the affairs within, during the late 40's, you can see the Paradigm shift...

However, if you look closer yet, we've been stealing land and raping minds for much longer....

And to think, some think we're blessed by God, 'cause we're a Christian nation? I dunno about that...

Here is the question you need to ask yourself..

Was Manifest Destiny God's will? If so, then the expansion of the US wasn't a sin. Perhaps some of the methods used were, but then those sins would have been individual and not national sins.

in hiding

09-07-2007, 07:58 AM

mat1583

09-07-2007, 08:44 AM

Here is the question you need to ask yourself..

Was Manifest Destiny God's will? If so, then the expansion of the US wasn't a sin. Perhaps some of the methods used were, but then those sins would have been individual and not national sins.

I wouldn't call the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima individual sins...

-washboard

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 08:57 AM

I wouldn't call the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima individual sins...

-washboard

But then we are back to talking about this last 1/4 of America's existence then.

mat1583

09-07-2007, 09:15 AM

But then we are back to talking about this last 1/4 of America's existence then.

Ok, then what about the slaughtering of Native Americans and stealing of their land?

-washboard

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 09:30 AM

Ok, then what about the slaughtering of Native Americans and stealing of their land?

-washboard

Again, if Manifest Destiny (meaning US existing Coast to Coast) was God's will, then the ill treatment of the Native Americans was the result of individuals going about fulfilling God's will the wrong way.

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 10:07 AM

First it was centuries.... now it's years... Care to make up your mind?

I meant years. Regardless, the US has done some awful things around the world, many covertly.

mat1583

09-07-2007, 10:10 AM

Again, if Manifest Destiny (meaning US existing Coast to Coast) was God's will, then the ill treatment of the Native Americans was the result of individuals going about fulfilling God's will the wrong way.

I was going to respond...but I think this is getting a bit off the topic. Perhaps a thread about Manifest Destiny would be appropriate?

-washboard

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 10:10 AM

Again, if Manifest Destiny (meaning US existing Coast to Coast) was God's will, then the ill treatment of the Native Americans was the result of individuals going about fulfilling God's will the wrong way.

We've persecuted others aside from Native Americans. Do you believe that's God's will too?

I personally don't believe God condoned mistreatment of Native Americans either.

I feel as Americans, we need to take a world view and love everyone, not based on how we want them to be, but how they actually are. It's easy to accept someone based on some notion of their change will make them more acceptable. It is more difficult to love someone for who they are, without change. Jesus calls us to love everyone, not change everyone to our beliefs.

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 10:12 AM

I meant years. Regardless, the US has done some awful things around the world, many covertly.

And it has also done some great things around the world, many covertly... What's your point?

mat1583

09-07-2007, 10:13 AM

We've persecuted others aside from Native Americans. Do you believe that's God's will too?

I personally don't believe God condoned mistreatment of Native Americans either.

I feel as Americans, we need to take a world view and love everyone, not based on how we want them to be, but how they actually are. It's easy to accept someone based on some notion of their change will make them more acceptable. It is more difficult to love someone for who they are, without change. Jesus calls us to love everyone, not change everyone to our beliefs.

You should make it clear that it may not be His will to change to our political beliefs, but certainly we are to be a witness to the world, show them Christ's love and try our best to bring them to Christ.

-washboard

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 10:16 AM

We've persecuted others aside from Native Americans. Do you believe that's God's will too?

I personally don't believe God condoned mistreatment of Native Americans either.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never once said that the mistreatment of Native Americans was God's will.

I feel as Americans, we need to take a world view and love everyone, not based on how we want them to be, but how they actually are. It's easy to accept someone based on some notion of their change will make them more acceptable. It is more difficult to love someone for who they are, without change. Jesus calls us to love everyone, not change everyone to our beliefs.

I think you are misreading the gospels. Jesus most certainly calls us to love everyone and to that I agree, but Salvation effects change.

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 10:36 AM

You should make it clear that it may not be His will to change to our political beliefs, but certainly we are to be a witness to the world, show them Christ's love and try our best to bring them to Christ.

-washboard

I agree!

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 10:38 AM

I think you are misreading the gospels. Jesus most certainly calls us to love everyone and to that I agree, but Salvation effects change.

I know people who are saved, but haven't changed. Jesus doesn't ask us to change others; He only asks us to love others.

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 10:50 AM

I know people who are saved, but haven't changed. Jesus doesn't ask us to change others; He only asks us to love others.

So then you deny the power of the gospel?

mat1583

09-07-2007, 10:58 AM

OK, to get back on topic. In this short clip of the debate, Dr. Paul explains his widely known belief that our actions in the Middle East contributed, in part, to the reasons why we were attacked on 9/11. Mayor Guli-whatever thinks the notion is absurd and gets a long applause for his obviously narrow-minded response. Dr. Paul makes a great point and asks (paraphrasing), "What would Americans think if China tried to do the same thing to us - came onto our soil and tried to impose their political ideologies on us by coercion through the use of bombs and guns?"

I know what Americans would do. They would take on the "Let's kick some @$$" mentality we showed so patriotically right after 9/11. Of course we would begin to hate China! We'd certainly retaliate against them! Why is it such a crazy notion that some groups in the Middle East have a deep hatred of us and our nation because of what we have done to their land and to their people?

I think some people in this nation really need to pull their heads from their butts and start realizing the consequences of our foreign policies and our nation building. Are Americans really so ignorant that they think we can just trample into foreign countries and not have any blow-back? From the applause Guli-whatever got, it seems like they are completely blind to the truth.

-washboard

mat1583

09-07-2007, 11:03 AM

More ignorance (lies) by Giu-whatever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZfBl_CI7gI&mode=related&search=

-washboard

larryl

09-07-2007, 11:05 AM

I know people who are saved, but haven't changed. Jesus doesn't ask us to change others; He only asks us to love others.

this statement needs it's own thread.

the gospel plainly states there is a change with salvation. many scriptures back that up....

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 11:09 AM

mat1583

09-07-2007, 11:56 AM

We are hated in the Middle East primarlly for our continued support of Israel. It is because of this almost unwavering support that has caused many to dispise US involvement in their country. (The Friend of our enemy is our enemy type mentality).

There is not one single cause, however. I believe both have contributed to that hatred.

-washboard

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 11:59 AM

There is not one single cause, however. I believe both have contributed to that hatred.

-washboard

Let me rephrase the point I was trying to make, I believe many muslims resent our influence in the area, because of our nations close ties with Israel. There are other western powers who mettle in the Middle east, but those contries are not the target of hatred because they don't have such ties.

They believe that becasue of the US's close ties with Israel, US influence is really Zionist influence.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-07-2007, 12:14 PM

We are hated in the Middle East primarlly for our continued support of Israel. It is because of this almost unwavering support that has caused many to dispise US involvement in their country. (The Friend of our enemy is our enemy type mentality).

It's not that simple. Here's few additional reasons why (garnered from a list by Francisco Gil-White sent to Nightline ABC)

-The Eisenhower administration's CIA brought down a popular representative government in Iran, in 1953, because Mosaddeq, the prime minister, wanted to nationalise Iran's oil. America installed, nurtured, cradled, and propped the Shah for the next 25 years no matter how dictatorial and oppressive he became.

-We also encouraged Saddam Hussein to wage a bloody war against Iran. He was actually our creation. An ally even before he rose to power.

-Saddam thought he had our blessing for everything. We had never stopped him before (not even when he used chemical weapons against his own population), and we had been supplying him with weapons. That is why he attacked Kuwait, the deliverance of which cost American lives.

-ihad as political holy war had been a dead concept in Islam for centuries, until WE brought it back to life. When a few crackpots in Pakistan and Afghanistan started talking about a holy war against the Soviet imperialists, the CIA thought, "Great! Let's get this started and launch millions of Muslims against our Cold War opponents." So we fostered, encouraged, and funded this holy war of the mujahideen. Osama bin Laden was our ally, spending his own money and organizing people on the ground, as well as bringing them from all parts of the Islamic world. WE built the network that is bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

-When it became necessary to deliver Kuwait from OUR violent protegé Saddam Hussein, American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's homeland. But they never left, and this is holy soil. This insult is added to the fact that we had been supporting the royal family there for long even though they run the country in dictatorial fashion and are widely hated. That is what made bin Laden our enemy. We had already built him up into a powerful warlord, and now he had gotten out of control.

-When the Islamic party in Algeria won in fair and free elections, we supported the violent crackdown of the military because, it was said, the Islamicists would abolish democracy. So we made sure it was abolished before the Islamicists had a chance to try. It is hard to convey just how bloody the rampages that followed have been.

-Did you know that Menachem Begin (The first Prime Minister of Israel) was originally wanted for terrorist actions?

The hate towards us and Britain have to do more with how we strategically placed people in power over what was originally a political system that was working (at least in the case for Iran). Our interests in their resources and our present deals with Saudi Arabia (a nation extensively hated by surrounding countries) are bigger reasons for their disdain.

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 12:14 PM

So then you deny the power of the gospel?

No, you are taking what I said out of context.

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 12:17 PM

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 12:20 PM

It's not that simple. Here's few additional reasons why (garnered from a list by Francisco Gil-White sent to Nightline ABC)

-The Eisenhower administration's CIA brought down a popular representative government in Iran, in 1953, because Mosaddeq, the prime minister, wanted to nationalise Iran's oil. America installed, nurtured, cradled, and propped the Shah for the next 25 years no matter how dictatorial and oppressive he became.

-We also encouraged Saddam Hussein to wage a bloody war against Iran. He was actually our creation. An ally even before he rose to power.

-Saddam thought he had our blessing for everything. We had never stopped him before (not even when he used chemical weapons against his own population), and we had been supplying him with weapons. That is why he attacked Kuwait, the deliverance of which cost American lives.

-ihad as political holy war had been a dead concept in Islam for centuries, until WE brought it back to life. When a few crackpots in Pakistan and Afghanistan started talking about a holy war against the Soviet imperialists, the CIA thought, "Great! Let's get this started and launch millions of Muslims against our Cold War opponents." So we fostered, encouraged, and funded this holy war of the mujahideen. Osama bin Laden was our ally, spending his own money and organizing people on the ground, as well as bringing them from all parts of the Islamic world. WE built the network that is bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

-When it became necessary to deliver Kuwait from OUR violent protegé Saddam Hussein, American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's homeland. But they never left, and this is holy soil. This insult is added to the fact that we had been supporting the royal family there for long even though they run the country in dictatorial fashion and are widely hated. That is what made bin Laden our enemy. We had already built him up into a powerful warlord, and now he had gotten out of control.

-When the Islamic party in Algeria won in fair and free elections, we supported the violent crackdown of the military because, it was said, the Islamicists would abolish democracy. So we made sure it was abolished before the Islamicists had a chance to try. It is hard to convey just how bloody the rampages that followed have been.

-Did you know that Menachem Begin (The first Prime Minister of Israel) was originally wanted for terrorist actions?

The hate towards us and Britain have to do more with how we strategically placed people in power over what was originally a political system that was working (at least in the case for Iran). Our interests in their resources and our present deals with Saudi Arabia (a nation extensively hated by surrounding countries) are bigger reasons for their disdain.

All while true, become much more inflamitory when America is viewed as a Pro Zionist state....

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 12:26 PM

No, you are taking what I said out of context.

You said you know people who are saved that are unchanged, I contend that with the power of the Gospel a beliver cannot be helped but to be changed.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-07-2007, 12:29 PM

All while true, become much more inflamitory when America is viewed as a Pro Zionist state....

Very true.

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 12:48 PM

Let me rephrase the point I was trying to make, I believe many muslims resent our influence in the area, because of our nations close ties with Israel. There are other western powers who mettle in the Middle east, but those contries are not the target of hatred because they don't have such ties.

They believe that becasue of the US's close ties with Israel, US influence is really Zionist influence.

I don't agree. We are targeted for many reasons. Many Iranians have hated us over the years due to our ties to the Shah.

As far as our close ties to Israel, other countries don't have close ties to Israel and are attacked as well (Spain, UK)

cheewiee

09-07-2007, 12:55 PM

I don't agree. We are targeted for many reasons. Many Iranians have hated us over the years due to our ties to the Shah.

As far as our close ties to Israel, other countries don't have close ties to Israel and are attacked as well (Spain, UK)

They dispised the Shah, because a Pro Zionist State replaced their Government with Him...

Again, these countries see America as a Pro Zionist State, and it colors their view of the US and her actions.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-07-2007, 04:42 PM

WeaselInYerFoot

09-07-2007, 05:43 PM

Jesuslove

09-07-2007, 06:01 PM

Here's (http://www.mises.org/story/2595) an exceptional piece on our foreign policies and the reason behind the actions of these terrorists. I recommend everyone read this, either to just gain some head candy, or try to refute it. Whichever :)

Awesome article. I wish this was required reading for all Americans. I find many Americans to be ignorant of our country's foreign policy. Many adopt the attitude, "If it doesn't happen on my soil, it doesn't affect me."

mat1583

09-07-2007, 06:13 PM

On the debate again, I just found a video that causes a certain increase in right eyebrow altitude. If you recall the crowd booing when RP was speaking about how he takes his marching orders from the constitution... this video (click! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJkfVdMEx5k)) shows what they were really booing at! notice the same people who cheered RP are the same people booing at the screen when Rudy Giggliani is shown.

Thanks for posting that about Giggliani! I knew something was up when the booing started. I'm glad there are people out there devoted enough to show the truth (Ron Paul included!)

-washboard

Evanescence

09-07-2007, 11:52 PM

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 08:33 AM

Good posts Weasel and Mat, now if we could only get the stubborn people who think the USA is perfect to wake up and smell the coffee.

Now, we know what is REPORTED and common knowledge about our Govt.....imagine what we DON'T know?

Hmmm....imagine that...:cool:

Amen Ev... America for once needs to own up to her mistakes and accept responsibility. Once we treat other nations with respect, we will get respected in return. Wouldn't it be so much better to be known as the country that provided clean drinking water to the world, than the country who tried to bully others and used terms like "new world order".

SonflowerGurl

09-08-2007, 11:54 AM

Sounds like you guys are a little disenchanted with the good ol' USofA. I don't think there is anyone who lives here or even those in government think's she's perfect. Yes, there is injustice, Yes, there is corruption, Yes, is disparity in economics....

with that said, please let me know what country that has it down that they are perfect (even a close second, please name)... We are the only remaining superpower ...and with "super" powers comes great responsibility...and since we are a government "OF" the people...that means it's OUR responsibility. What I find is most people love the Freedom of Speech to complain, whine, degenerate about everything that's wrong about there country of citizenship but very few actually do something to make the place better. The reason we have the government we have is because of apathy.

While I personally think Ron Paul is probably "too" out there, some of his ideas are useable. I do believe some of his ideas on Federalism are right on target as states rights give more power to the people in there day to day lives. Take away the Iraq War from the headlines and the Democrats have "Nothing". The Iraq War has been handled badly but I don't believe the intention was ever to take over that country. You call the US a bully --what would you have call Saddam? What do you call the Taliban? What would you have called the USSR? What Do you call Iran or Korea? Do you call these "poor" countries victims?

While the Iraq War does have to be resolved in a smart way...not wishful thinking or tucking our tales and running....I'm more concerned with our own countries values where nothing matters. If there are folks in leadership roles that aren't stepping up in manner of honor and duty...then it's our job to make sure we step up to our responsibility.

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 01:37 PM

with that said, please let me know what country that has it down that they are perfect (even a close second, please name)...

1. Canada
2. Ireland
3. Finland
4. Sweden
5. Norway
6. Denmark
7. Iceland
8. Switzerland

How's that for a short list. All of these countries stay out of other's internal affairs. They all have high standards of living. They aren't hated around the world.

I am proud to be an American, but I am not proud of some things our government has done. I will work hard to esure change in the US cause I want this to be my home forever, but it's not out of the question I will move abroad in 12 years when I retire.

Evanescence

09-08-2007, 04:21 PM

1. Canada
2. Ireland
3. Finland
4. Sweden
5. Norway
6. Denmark
7. Iceland
8. Switzerland

How's that for a short list. All of these countries stay out of other's internal affairs. They all have high standards of living. They aren't hated around the world.

I am proud to be an American, but I am not proud of some things our government has done. I will work hard to esure change in the US cause I want this to be my home forever, but it's not out of the question I will move abroad in 12 years when I retire.

Sweden and Denmark have some cute girls...;)

clemsontigers23

09-08-2007, 05:25 PM

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 05:39 PM

If you don't love it, leave it. Go live in a socialist country rich with disease and immorality.

Once we have a democrat president, we will be fine. I'm holding out. The nations I listed are not disease havens. In fact, they are among the nations with the longest average lifespans.

clemsontigers23

09-08-2007, 05:45 PM

Once we have a democrat president, we will be fine. I'm holding out. The nations I listed are not disease havens. In fact, they are among the nations with the longest average lifespans.

What's so different about a Democrat? Last time I checked, Democrats were the ones wanting to legalize gay marriage, keep abortion (baby killing) legal, and some even want to legalize drugs. Most Republicans (except Giuliani) are against these things and support maintaining Christian morals in our country.

When I said disease, I didn't necessarily mean physical illnesses...but anyway, a lot of those countries have socialized medicine, and many people from those countries (especially Canada) come to the U.S. to have major surgeries.

Denmark, Norway, Finland all have amazingly high suicide rates, and depression is rampant. You will also be hard-pressed to find a large Christian population and might have trouble finding a church that lines up with your beliefs.

The only countries I would consider moving to are England and Austrailia...but the USA is plenty good enough for me, and I'm proud to be an American.

Evanescence

09-08-2007, 06:43 PM

Come on guys...lets all be nice...

Lets all visualize Whirled Peas :D :D :D

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 06:59 PM

What's so different about a Democrat? Last time I checked, Democrats were the ones wanting to legalize gay marriage, keep abortion (baby killing) legal, and some even want to legalize drugs. Most Republicans (except Giuliani) are against these things and support maintaining Christian morals in our country.

When I said disease, I didn't necessarily mean physical illnesses...but anyway, a lot of those countries have socialized medicine, and many people from those countries (especially Canada) come to the U.S. to have major surgeries.

Denmark, Norway, Finland all have amazingly high suicide rates, and depression is rampant. You will also be hard-pressed to find a large Christian population and might have trouble finding a church that lines up with your beliefs.

The only countries I would consider moving to are England and Austrailia...but the USA is plenty good enough for me, and I'm proud to be an American.

I am proud to be American as well. And the Republicans aren't always right on moral issues. For example, the Democrats are willing to do much more for the poor, and they don't believe in the death penalty. Do you realize that the rich have gotten richer since Bush took over. In 2000, the top 1% of wage earners earned 14% of total income. In 2006, the top 1% of wage earners earned 22% of total income. The rich getting richer is hardly a Christian principle. I don't understand how impoverished Christian people are willing to vote for a leader that supports big business (the rich getting richer).

Also, the Republicans aren't very Christian acting when it comes to the environment. A good friend of mine works for the EPA. Since Bush has taken over, many large corporations who have been fined for excessive pollution levels, have had fines waved by this administration.

One last point... many will argue that this war is immoral. Nearly three-quarters of a million Iraqis have been killed, including many civilians. As Christians, how do we justify this? This REPUBLICAN president, got us into this mess based on lies. Surely Christ would not have supported an unjust war.

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 07:58 PM

If you don't love it, leave it.

And those don't sound like Christian, or democratic words.

Evanescence

09-08-2007, 08:30 PM

I am proud to be American as well. And the Republicans aren't always right on moral issues. For example, the Democrats are willing to do much more for the poor, and they don't believe in the death penalty. Do you realize that the rich have gotten richer since Bush took over. In 2000, the top 1% of wage earners earned 14% of total income. In 2006, the top 1% of wage earners earned 22% of total income. The rich getting richer is hardly a Christian principle. I don't understand how impoverished Christian people are willing to vote for a leader that supports big business (the rich getting richer).

Also, the Republicans aren't very Christian acting when it comes to the environment. A good friend of mine works for the EPA. Since Bush has taken over, many large corporations who have been fined for excessive pollution levels, have had fines waved by this administration.

One last point... many will argue that this war is immoral. Nearly three-quarters of a million Iraqis have been killed, including many civilians. As Christians, how do we justify this? This REPUBLICAN president, got us into this mess based on lies. Surely Christ would not have supported an unjust war.

Amen brother!!! But, lets be careful lifting up DEMS too far...they are about as bad as REPS on many aspects....its dead even in my book, for them morally.

Yeah, Bush is about to be canonized in many Christian circles. Ha, they don't even know him and yet they practially claim he's a saint....

Gotta love the Sheeople....

larryl

09-08-2007, 09:48 PM

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 09:55 PM

Amen brother!!! But, lets be careful lifting up DEMS too far...they are about as bad as REPS on many aspects....its dead even in my book, for them morally.

Yeah, Bush is about to be canonized in many Christian circles. Ha, they don't even know him and yet they practially claim he's a saint....

Gotta love the Sheeople....

hmmmmm.... I used words like these on this boards back before the 2004 election and I was nearly tarred and feathered. My "Sheeple" commnet was pulled. It's unfortunate that many view GWB as America's hero when he is responsible for severely damaging America's reputation.

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 09:56 PM

larryl

09-08-2007, 10:17 PM

Jesuslove

09-08-2007, 10:51 PM

just as an FYI.....

i'm not gay, and i don't do drugs, but i wish the gov't would get out of both.

amen. There's just some things the government shouldn't be involved in. I have never ever even experimented with drugs once, yet I too think our laws need to change. I used to be the most anti-drug person, until I got to know some addicts firsthand. There are far too many drug addicts in prison who would be better served by counseling and addiction programs.

The drug addicts I know are not evil people; they are addicted people. They need help, not incarceration.

Evanescence

09-08-2007, 11:56 PM

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Notice that on the FBI's own website Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the embassy bombings but there is no mention of his being wanted in connection with 911.

When contacted regarding this the FBI spokesman explained that 911 is not listed on Bin Laden's page because there is 'no hard evidence connecting him to 911'.

To this day, the FBI has still not formally indicted Bin Laden for the crimes of 911.

Imagine that...

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 03:11 PM

well shoot.... i am a christian and have been a republican for years, until i discovered libertarians.....

and i am OK with the legalization of gay marriage and drugs. in fact i favor them. and we've had 8 years of GWB with a REP congress for most of it, and abortion is still legal. what's a DEM going to do to make it worse?

You favor the legalization of drugs? Have you seen how drugs destroy lives? Do you really want people to be walking around high on crack? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You're in favor of legalizing something that is an abomination to God? Do you know where sodomy got its name from? Seems to me like God destroyed a couple of cities because homosexuality was so widespread.

Abortion is still legal, but not long ago partial birth abortions were banned in a Supreme Court decision and many think it's the first steps towards making it illegal. Don't give me that stuff about what if it threatens the mother's life, what if the mother was raped, etc. because over 90% of abortions are done because somebody simply doesn't want the kid. You can look that up.

I am proud to be American as well. And the Republicans aren't always right on moral issues. For example, the Democrats are willing to do much more for the poor, and they don't believe in the death penalty. Do you realize that the rich have gotten richer since Bush took over. In 2000, the top 1% of wage earners earned 14% of total income. In 2006, the top 1% of wage earners earned 22% of total income. The rich getting richer is hardly a Christian principle. I don't understand how impoverished Christian people are willing to vote for a leader that supports big business (the rich getting richer).

Our family's made more money than we ever have thanks to Bush's tax cuts and such. We're not rich, either.

And those don't sound like Christian, or democratic words.

You keep complaining about how bad the U.S. is...why not move if you don't like it? You'll find soon enough how good you have it.

Amen brother!!! But, lets be careful lifting up DEMS too far...they are about as bad as REPS on many aspects....its dead even in my book, for them morally.

Yeah, Bush is about to be canonized in many Christian circles. Ha, they don't even know him and yet they practially claim he's a saint....

Gotta love the Sheeople....

No, some people just don't follow the crowd and hate Bush because everyone else does. Look past the war and see how many great things he has done. There's a reason why Third Day campaigned for him so heavily.

As far as the Sheeople comment...most people who hate Bush don't even know why they hate him. It's all a part of following the crowd and not being strong enough to go against the crowd even when it's unpopular. The same people who hate him now are the same people who were all for the war because everyone else was.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 04:07 PM

You're in favor of legalizing something that is an abomination to God? Do you know where sodomy got its name from? Seems to me like God destroyed a couple of cities because homosexuality was so widespread.
Check your dictionary: the definition of sodomy is not homosexuality.

Our family's made more money than we ever have thanks to Bush's tax cuts and such. We're not rich, either.
You may make more money than ever, but your dollar is worth less than it was 7 years ago when Bush took over. Look at fuel costs. Look at this $4,000 per person cost of this war. So while you may think you are better off, our country is in significant debt.

You keep complaining about how bad the U.S. is...why not move if you don't like it? You'll find soon enough how good you have it..

Well maybe I'll be asking you that when there's a Democrat in the White House.

No, some people just don't follow the crowd and hate Bush because everyone else does. Look past the war and see how many great things he has done. There's a reason why Third Day campaigned for him so heavily..
Great things? What? Please help me. I can only think of one.

As far as the Sheeople comment...most people who hate Bush don't even know why they hate him.
First of all, I don't hate him. I hate what he's done to America.

It's all a part of following the crowd and not being strong enough to go against the crowd even when it's unpopular. The same people who hate him now are the same people who were all for the war because everyone else was.
Not me. I was against the war from day one. It wasn't the Christian thing to do. To me, it wasn't moral or just. They didn't invade America. The Saudi's weren't punished for their role in 9/11.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:17 PM

Check your dictionary: the definition of sodomy is not homosexuality.

It includes homosexual acts.

You may make more money than ever, but your dollar is worth less than it was 7 years ago when Bush took over. Look at fuel costs. Look at this $4,000 per person cost of this war. So while you may think you are better off, our country is in significant debt.

Fuel costs has more to do with the world's supply of oil running out and oil companies in the Middle East dramatically raising their prices. We are able to pay the $4,000 per person cost of the war because of the many things Bush has done for us.

Well maybe I'll be asking you that when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Maybe so. I've thought about attending college in England, but I haven't given serious consideration to the idea. Let's just hope a Democrat doesn't win.

Not me. I was against the war from day one. It wasn't the Christian thing to do. To me, it wasn't moral or just. They didn't invade America. The Saudi's weren't punished for their role in 9/11.

War is never good, but wars are fought in the Bible as well. Remember, we were attacked first.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:18 PM

Great things? What? Please help me. I can only think of one.

Not sure which "one" you're thinking of, but here's a list of great things Bush has done that I found at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066122/posts

Abortion & Traditional Values

Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.

Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.

By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.

By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.

Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.

Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.
Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.
Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).
Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.
Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.

Budget, Taxes & Economy

Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.
Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.

Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.
In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.

Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.

Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.

Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Signed trade promotion authority.

Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.
Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.
Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.
Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.
Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.
Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child.
Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.
Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.
Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.
Character & Conduct as President

Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency.
Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse.
Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days:
Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation:

http://www.september11news.com/Sept14BushFlagWTCBeck.jpg

Education & Employment Training

Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.

Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.
Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)
Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.
Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.
Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.
Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.
Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to to become teachers.

Environment & Energy

Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.
Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.
Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.

Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.

Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.

Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.

Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.

Defense & Foreign Policy

Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured.
Leader by leader and member by member, al Qaida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaida leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed.

Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.

Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.

Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.

Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.

Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.

Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.

Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.

Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.

Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.
Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.
Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.
Ordered a review of overseas deployments.
Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.
Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.
Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.
Globalization & Internationalism

Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).

Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.

Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).*
The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.
Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:19 PM

Government Reform

Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises.

Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.

Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.*
Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers.
Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.

Health

Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.
Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.
Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:
A 10-year privatization option.
Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.

More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.

New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.

Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration

*See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security.
Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004.

Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield).
Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders.
The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.

Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.
Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones.

Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.

This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.
Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization.
Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.
Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications.
Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.
Judiciary & Tort Reform

Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.

Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.

Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.

Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.
Politics

His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes.

Second Amendment

Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right.
Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit.

Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.

*See Globalization & Internationalism.

Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism

Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself."

Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.

Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.

The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved.
Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible.
Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them.
Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.
Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa.

Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:

- Equal Justice
- Freedom of Speech
- Limited Government Power
- Private Property Rights
- Religious Tolerance
- Respect for Women
- Rule of Law

HotWireD

09-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Hitler's mass genocide of Jews not a worthy cause for entering a war?

America did not join the fight in the Second World war when reports started coming out of the genocide in the occupied territories. Japan attacked the Us and they declared war on Japan - and the other members of the axis, the Germans and Italians.

However, there are arguments that the genocide going on in Germany was not known that early in the war, or that people could not believe it was true, the news being so incredible. If this is the case the US could not have gone to war because of the genocide of the Jews (and others) because they did not know it was going on.

The US and their allies went to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were funding, hiding and training terrorists. the taliban are still there and will just regroup and have the freedom to plan more atrocities if the Us and their allies leave. I agree, the deaths of all the tropops in afghanistan would have been in vain if we leave.

Iraq does not (in my opinion) make sense using this argument. Saudi Arabia would have been a better choice. The pilots and hijackers on 9/11 were, in the main from there, as is Osama bin Laden. Being slightly cynical, Saudi Arabia is pro-western and its existance in the region helps maintain a modicum of stability.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:27 PM

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 04:27 PM

It includes homosexual acts.
It include heterosexual acts too.

Fuel costs has more to do with the world's supply of oil running out and oil companies in the Middle East dramatically raising their prices. We are able to pay the $4,000 per person cost of the war because of the many things Bush has done for us. .
Nonetheless, fuel prices are rising and the middle class is shrinking. The Bush Administration has thrust us into debt with this war. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war. You say Bush has done many things for us.. what?

Maybe so. I've thought about attending college in England, but I haven't given serious consideration to the idea. Let's just hope a Democrat doesn't win.
I will likely be supporting a Democratic candidate. As I said yesterday, the Republicans don't own the moral issues. They cut both ways.

War is never good, but wars are fought in the Bible as well. Remember, we were attacked first.

Please tell me you are not serious. Iraq didn't attack us. If an American went into Canada and bombed a city, would that give Canada the right to attack the US? That logic doesn't work for me.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:30 PM

Nonetheless, fuel prices are rising and the middle class is shrinking. The Bush Administration has thrust us into debt with this war. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war. You say Bush has done many things for us.. what?

I have two posts above that describe the good things Bush has done.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 04:30 PM

We went after Iraq because Saddam was seeking (or already had) weapons of mass destruction...it's not unreasonable to think he either destroyed them or sent them elsewhere (Syria) to make us look bad, and he has succeeded if that is the case.

They could also be buried in a place where we haven't looked yet...very possible. There's a reason why he kicked the UN weapons inspectors out...he was up to something.

No, we went into Iraq because George W. Bush lied and said that Saddam had weapons already. We had proof, remember?

No matter what, we never found WMD's. If they existed, we would have found them.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:31 PM

No, we went into Iraq because George W. Bush lied and said that Saddam had weapons already. We had proof, remember?

No matter what, we never found WMD's. If they existed, we would have found them.

Not if Saddam destroyed them or moved them out of the country.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 04:32 PM

I have two posts above that describe the good things Bush has done.

I could refute each point but I don't have time right now. You didn't challenge my notion that our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war. That's sad.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 04:34 PM

Not if Saddam destroyed them or moved them out of the country.

Well, it's a stretch at best. GWB ensured us he knew (or our "intelligence" told him) where they were. Funny, these weapons were never used when we attacked them. Do you think we'd use WMD's on them if Iraq invaded the US?

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:38 PM

Well, it's a stretch at best. GWB ensured us he knew (or our "intelligence" told him) where they were. Funny, these weapons were never used when we attacked them. Do you think we'd use WMD's on them if Iraq invaded the US?

Saddam might have known he was going to lose and wanted to do the best he could to ruin our image, which is making us look bad by destroying the WMDs. It's not a stretch to think that.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 04:45 PM

Saddam might have known he was going to lose and wanted to do the best he could to ruin our image, which is making us look bad by destroying the WMDs. It's not a stretch to think that.

I find that hard to believe. If we as Americans had them and we were invaded, we'd use whatever was in our arsenal.

You still haven't answered the debt comment. GWB is not a fiscal conservative. We've had an explosion of debt since he took over.

As for me, if we don't have major changes in America, I will take my government retirement and move abroad with my family. I love America. I just think her present leadership is misguided.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 04:56 PM

I find that hard to believe. If we as Americans had them and we were invaded, we'd use whatever was in our arsenal.

You still haven't answered the debt comment. GWB is not a fiscal conservative. We've had an explosion of debt since he took over.

As for me, if we don't have major changes in America, I will take my government retirement and move abroad with my family. I love America. I just think her present leadership is misguided.

I don't think you could honestly refute every one those things I posted that Bush has done, especially better technology for the disabled and required parental consent for abortions.

I also hope and pray for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as God defined marriage, which is one man and one woman. I wouldn't want my kids getting any ideas that any other way is 'OK'

If you legalize gay marriage, might as well legalize public nudity and murder. If you truly believed that all sins are an abomination to God, then you would be against it.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 05:02 PM

I don't think you could honestly refute every one those things I posted that Bush has done, especially better technology for the disabled and required parental consent for abortions.

I also hope and pray for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as God defined marriage, which is one man and one woman. I wouldn't want my kids getting any ideas that any other way is 'OK'

If you legalize gay marriage, might as well legalize public nudity and murder. If you truly believed that all sins are an abomination to God, then you would be against it.

Please.... there's a huge difference between what people do in the privacy of their own home between two consenting adults and murder. Bush promised to ban gay marriage. Has he? Has he done ANYTHING other than giving lip service. Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and he wouldn't do anything to offend her.

And are you really serious... do you think if they legalize gay marriage, your kids would be more attracted to the same sex?

I believe divorce is an abomination of God yet, I see no pending legislation by the "moral" Republican party. Why?

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 05:15 PM

Please.... there's a huge difference between what people do in the privacy of their own home between two consenting adults and murder. Bush promised to ban gay marriage. Has he? Has he done ANYTHING other than giving lip service. Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and he wouldn't do anything to offend her.

And are you really serious... do you think if they legalize gay marriage, your kids would be more attracted to the same sex?

I believe divorce is an abomination of God yet, I see no pending legislation by the "moral" Republican party. Why?

I will tell you firsthand that there's an increasingly large group of homosexuals at our high school, and an increasingly large number of celebrities coming out and saying they're gay.

I think the best example of the increasing homosexuality was at Boulder High in Colorado. In one instance, a picture of two lesbians kissing was put in the yearbook. In another, an assembly held at the school featured promotions of not only homosexuality, but "free love" and drugs as well. A high school in Illinois had their kids sign confidentiality agreements before attending a pro-homosexuality assembly so their parents wouldn't find out.

I do think that if a young child is exposed to homosexuality they will be prone to it...it's just as enticing as any other sin to many, especially those exposed to it. The best example of this was when the San Diego Padres played the Braves at home and held Gay Pride Night on the same night of a kids giveaway. Whenever the Padres showed a gay couple on the jumbotron, the couple kissed and you could actually see the confusion on the kids' faces. You can't freakin' tell me that kids aren't led astray by this. I see this every freakin' day, Satan deceiving people into thinking it's okay. They're getting ready to show a series of ads on national TV preaching tolerance for homosexuality...tolerance for homosexuals, yes, but homosexuality is NOT to be tolerated.

You are the same person who said remarriage is also an abomination to God and that every sin is equal...why don't you put your money where your mouth is and admit that by your definition, homosexuality is just as bad as murder because all sin is bad in God's eyes.

As far as divorce being a sin, my mom was beaten numerous times by the drug addict and alcoholic who just so happens to have fathered me. One time he almost killed her. You cannot freakin' tell me that she shouldn't have divorced him. She would have been dead, and probably me with her because he kidnapped me when I was a baby. The father I know now is the only father I've ever known. You can't freakin' tell me that it's a sin that I have a dad. There's more to it than that. I'm pretty sure Jesus was talking about divorcing someone so they could marry someone else, and solely for that purpose.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 05:32 PM

Please.... there's a huge difference between what people do in the privacy of their own home between two consenting adults and murder. Bush promised to ban gay marriage. Has he? Has he done ANYTHING other than giving lip service. Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and he wouldn't do anything to offend her.

And are you really serious... do you think if they legalize gay marriage, your kids would be more attracted to the same sex?

I believe divorce is an abomination of God yet, I see no pending legislation by the "moral" Republican party. Why?

RED HERRING AGAIN! Is that all you've got?

Most Bible-believing Christians do not believe your arguement. Sorry, that's the way it is.

Now as for the debt issue, there are lot of other issues pending like Social Security reform, Medicaid reform that is much more likely to cripple our kids and grandkids than the Iraq war. Is you had cancer would you treat it or would you just worry that it might drain your bank account? There is a quote that "Evil can only exist when good men do nothing".

The War in Iraq is a temporary conflict hopefully that will eventually stablize the global situation although I confess it doesn't look that way at the moment. Sometimes you have to have a longer term vision and there has to be true leadership in the matter. I don't try to place blame on anyone but we as a country has to have unquestionable integity ...unfortunately we have had instances that has made the U.S. have to regain that trust. This was a huge mistake in leadership in this conflict and hopefully will not be made again.

As for the solution to the debt, problem -- the U.S. is such an innovative, productive country as we have proven again and again in our past. We have to encourage, develop, and even educate our breakthrough technologies, services and products from the US. We have to have vision again as a country and have BHG's (Big Hairy Goals). And although we'd love to help everyone else in the world, which we do, we have to have pro-business policies for our people first...if we don't how else are we going to help someone else?

Jesuslove, with all love intended... I don't think we'll ever agree... which being a citizen of the U.S., disagreement is allowed. Being a Christian, well, it's submitting to God's word.

larryl

09-09-2007, 05:33 PM

i'd like to see a source for the confidentiality agreement story, please.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 05:55 PM

I will tell you firsthand that there's an increasingly large group of homosexuals at our high school, and an increasingly large number of celebrities coming out and saying they're gay.

I think the best example of the increasing homosexuality was at Boulder High in Colorado. In one instance, a picture of two lesbians kissing was put in the yearbook. In another, an assembly held at the school featured promotions of not only homosexuality, but "free love" and drugs as well. A high school in Illinois had their kids sign confidentiality agreements before attending a pro-homosexuality assembly so their parents wouldn't find out.
I don't agree that there are more homosexuals. Years ago, many homosexuals got married or became priests and led a double life.

I do think that if a young child is exposed to homosexuality they will be prone to it...it's just as enticing as any other sin to many, especially those exposed to it..
I disagree. Does tolerance of homosexuality make you more attracted to men (assuming you are a man)? If sexuality is a choice, could you be attracted to a man, just by a simple choice? Are you equally attracted to men and women, but prefer women cause it's the moral thing to do?

You are the same person who said remarriage is also an abomination to God and that every sin is equal...why don't you put your money where your mouth is and admit that by your definition, homosexuality is just as bad as murder because all sin is bad in God's eyes.
Why don't you stop and admit that divorce is as bad a sin as murder. Jesus was very very clear about divorce; only was it acceptable in the case of cheating. Jesus said less, some would argue nothing, about homosexuality.

As far as divorce being a sin, my mom was beaten numerous times by the drug addict and alcoholic who just so happens to have fathered me. One time he almost killed her. You cannot freakin' tell me that she shouldn't have divorced him. She would have been dead, and probably me with her because he kidnapped me when I was a baby. The father I know now is the only father I've ever known. You can't freakin' tell me that it's a sin that I have a dad. There's more to it than that. I'm pretty sure Jesus was talking about divorcing someone so they could marry someone else, and solely for that purpose.
Look, I didn't make the rules, I just read the Bible and believe what is says. How can you condemn some based on the Bible, but not apply the Bible equally. You can't pick and choose which scripture are right. The Bible, and particularly Jesus spoke about the sin of divorce. Sorry. That's what is says in black and whilte. How can you say Jesus meant something different when it is right there in black and white, yet when it comes to other scripture, say for example scripture interpreted about homosexuality, there's no gray area. You either believe in Jesus' word or you don't.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 05:57 PM

RED HERRING AGAIN! Is that all you've got?

Most Bible-believing Christians do not believe your arguement. Sorry, that's the way it is.

That doesn't make it right. Sorry.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 06:01 PM

i'd like to see a source for the confidentiality agreement story, please.

April 26th, 2006 was the 10th annual "Day of Silence" where kids K-12 stayed silent in support of gay kids. More than 4,000 schools nationwide participated.

This year, April 18th was the Day of Silence. This year a record 5,000 schools participated, as boasted by the official website. http://www.dayofsilence.org/

August 23rd, 2006, California passed this amazing bill:

California's State Assembly on Monday passed a bill so sweeping that it would mandate "homosexual indoctrination" of schoolchildren as young as kindergarten, according to CWA's California leaders.

SB 1437, which requires editing textbooks and other materials to give only positive references to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and transvestitism, was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 47-31 (46 Democrats and one Republican for; 30 Republicans and one Democrat against) after a Republican-sponsored amendment to require parental permission failed 26-48. The bill was sponsored by lesbian activist state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a former actress who is the driving force behind the legislative homosexual agenda. Earlier this month, in the face of a promised veto by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Kuehl removed a portion of the bill that would have forced all California public schools to teach the "history and achievements" of homosexuals in America.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), who floor-managed SB 1437, said in his floor statement that the bill was about the "safety" of "sexual minority kids." He said that the schools had an obligation to prohibit anything that, as the bill puts it, "reflects adversely" on homosexuality. "The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view," Nunez said.

CWA's Harrington noted that, "A member of our state legislature (Rep. Lloyd Levine [D-Van Nuys]) has thumbed his nose at traditional Biblical values by calling parents, pastors, church leaders, and common sense Californians a 'shrill and diminishing minority.'"

Meanwhile, former homosexual and now pro-family San Diego activist James Hartline revealed this week that a San Diego tax-funded charter school allowed elementary-age children to march in the recent San Diego Gay Pride Parade, a development that Hartline, who publishes a pro-family newsletter, found "appalling."

"These children were brought into the midst of a number of businesses promoting pornography and nearly nude men and women in graphic sexualized demonstrations," Hartline told WorldNetDaily.com.

"The children marched under the auspices of the San Diego Cooperative Charter School. Did the teachers miss the man who marched down the street giving out goodies while only wearing a g-string?" Hartline asked. "Did they overlook the car filled with men that advertised for RentBoy, a male escort service?"

As for the California school legislation, pro-family groups, including CWA of California, are urging constituents to contact Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to ask him to veto SB 1437 and several others that are either on his desk or likely to arrive there.

Seven Assembly members, all of them Republicans, spoke on the floor against SB 1437 before the vote. Six members, all Democrats, spoke in favor of the bill.

Rep. Jay La Suer (R-San Diego) called the bill "a camel's nose of the homosexual agenda going into our schools. It's about time we said 'enough is enough.' Don't push this down the throats of families who don't want it and children who don't understand it. This bill is basically a predatory bill that preys upon the innocence of children."

"We must stop the homosexual indoctrination of our children. If these bills become law, our children will be taught that homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behaviors are normal and acceptable. Parents should be storming the capitol demanding that the governor veto these bills. We must protect our children."

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11373/CFI/education/index.htm

I won't post this entire article, but you can find it here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55 373

April 25, 2007

Students punished for opposing 'gay' advocacy

Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of students in several Sacramento area school districts are being penalized by school officials for objecting to the homosexual advocacy "Day of Silence," according to a law firm handling many complaints.

"We are looking at our options. If our affiliate attorneys come forward and help us with these … there might be dozens of lawsuits. I believe we have enough good attorneys both in skill and as a matter of conscience to step up to the plate," Kevin Snider, the chief counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute told WND.

The issues arose during the annual "Day of Silence," last week at Inderkum, Rio Linda and San Juan high schools. That is an event promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network organization, which advocates for the homosexual lifestyle and promotes educating children in that choice.

During that event, students go around school during the day without speaking, and they hand out cards stating they are protesting the "discrimination" against the homosexual lifestyle.

Many schools allow such activities without penalty, although one Illinois school has in the past notified students while they had the choice to participate, teachers were not obligated to facilitate that activity by allowing them not to answer questions.

A year ago, the following e-mail went to students at the Urbana school, where participation in the GLSEN event is declining:

"A reminder: Protest often brings with it consequences. Are you willing to pay the price or is this a game you are playing?

"Sometimes those consequences are positive as in change of heart or feelings for someone else or for an idea. Sometimes they can be negative as in a grade reduction for failure to participate in a class. Please note that instruction and the teacher in charge of the instruction is not out to 'get' the student or to protest the Day of Silence if they ask you to communicate. Sometimes meaningful instruction must have an exchange of ideas via speech. If this is the case and the teacher requires a verbal exchange and you refuse to speak that is the cost of the protest to you. Don't blame the teacher. Chalk it up to the cost of protest for ideas that you believe in. Please also remember that selective protest – in the classroom but not in the hall – is not in the spirit of the day."

Snider said an estimated 3,000-4,000 Sacramento area students remained out of class to protest the GLSEN event. Others attended and many "did some sort of speech activities on the Day of Silence or the days following."

He said the activities generally involved a protest on a sidewalk near a school, wearing a T-shirt that expressed the student's religious views on homosexuality, or some sort of literature distribution.

Snider told WND there was no overall resolution apparent, because there were a number of school districts involved, with a variety of actions and outcomes.

"A lot of students were suspended," he said. "Others were just kicked out [of school] and told to go home for the day. I'm not certain that is legal. You can't just kick students out."

He said that might have been done by the schools to avoid legal liability. "When there's punishment, the schools face liability," he said.

But he told WND some students' parents came with them to school the next day, and said, "My understanding is that my student was suspended."

"In some cases, the secretary said, 'We have no record of that,'" he said.

Other schools had been suspending students who objected to the pro-homosexual advocacy, but then abruptly halted in the middle of the day. Another school "rounded up" several students days later and held them for three hours.

"The parents are quite upset at this," he said.

"There's at least one school district that looks like they are digging in and not going to remove, expunge, suspensions," Snider said. "So that may well be a legal confrontation."

Here's the one you asked for larryl:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54 683

District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."

In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors."

"This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."

He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar.

Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well."

The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake."

He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum.

Barber noted the damage being done is significant.

"Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to – and encouraged to participate in – a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said.

It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children.

In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians.

The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

An appeal of that decision is pending.

The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

And, he said, since history "includes instances of … official discrimination against gays and lesbians … it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students … different sexual orientations."

If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school …[or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 06:05 PM

Look, I didn't make the rules, I just read the Bible and believe what is says. How can you condemn some based on the Bible, but not apply the Bible equally. You can't pick and choose which scripture are right. The Bible, and particularly Jesus spoke about the sin of divorce. Sorry. That's what is says in black and whilte. How can you say Jesus meant something different when it is right there in black and white, yet when it comes to other scripture, say for example scripture interpreted about homosexuality, there's no gray area. You either believe in Jesus' word or you don't.

I think what my mom did was right. If she didn't do it, I wouldn't have a mom and I'd probably be living with my drug addict biological father who doesn't have a job and lives in a trailer...I'd probably be dropped out of school, hooked on drugs and alcohol, and I certainly wouldn't be receiving college letters from Mercer and Clemson.

Most importantly, I probably wouldn't know the Truth of Jesus Christ...this is all assuming that I'd still be alive.

I think you're taking it a bit too far to say my mom is living in sin because she divorced a man who was trying to kill her.

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 06:13 PM

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 06:15 PM

Clemson is right, ANY kind os sexuality talk, promotion or even discussion can cause ones mind to wander. However, I'm not sure that gay mariage would encourage it. If publicized and constantly talked about, it might.

Thats why KIDS shouldn't watch TV !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I was 14, I was subjected to hard-core nude magazines of women. That day my innocence was lost.

What we see is what we become....

Yeah...especially when schools are holding pro-homosexual assemblies and forcing kids to go to them, and then punishing kids who choose not to go.

Thankfully I go to a school where our principal is an ordained minister.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 06:26 PM

That doesn't make it right. Sorry.

Neither does it make another sin RIGHT by pointing at another one.

BTW ...wasn't this thread about Ron Paul? Funny, how everything comes back to those terrible Repulicans are bankrupting our grandkids because of the Iraq war. And how can you be against gay marriage yet let divorced people marry again? Seems all roads lead to this one arguement. Is it just me? :confused:

larryl

09-09-2007, 07:27 PM

thanks clemson.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 07:30 PM

thanks clemson.

No problem.

HotWireD

09-09-2007, 07:48 PM

i'd like to see a source for the confidentiality agreement story, please.

It was discussed (with links to news articles) on a previous thread.

I will try to find it... when I get home from work. :)

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 07:50 PM

It was discussed (with links to news articles) on a previous thread.

I will try to find it... when I get home from work. :)

Don't worry, I already put it on here. ;)

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 08:47 PM

I think what my mom did was right. If she didn't do it, I wouldn't have a mom and I'd probably be living with my drug addict biological father who doesn't have a job and lives in a trailer...I'd probably be dropped out of school, hooked on drugs and alcohol, and I certainly wouldn't be receiving college letters from Mercer and Clemson.

Most importantly, I probably wouldn't know the Truth of Jesus Christ...this is all assuming that I'd still be alive.

I think you're taking it a bit too far to say my mom is living in sin because she divorced a man who was trying to kill her.

Nonetheless, sin is sin. Jesus was clear about this. If you think otherwise, tell me the passage. I think you judge some, and then make excuses for othres. I'm sorry to hear about your Mom, but based on the Bible, sin is sin. Are you suggesting the Bible is wrong?

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 08:50 PM

Clemson is right, ANY kind os sexuality talk, promotion or even discussion can cause ones mind to wander. However, I'm not sure that gay mariage would encourage it. If publicized and constantly talked about, it might.

Thats why KIDS shouldn't watch TV !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I was 14, I was subjected to hard-core nude magazines of women. That day my innocence was lost.

What we see is what we become....

I disagree. Most homosexuals are raised by heterosexual parents. And homoexual parents can raise heterosexual children. I don't think discussing something like sexuality can make someone be attracted to someone of the same sex.

Can I ask who exposed you to hardcore mags as a child? A parent? A teacher? other?

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 08:53 PM

Yeah...especially when schools are holding pro-homosexual assemblies and forcing kids to go to them, and then punishing kids who choose not to go.

Thankfully I go to a school where our principal is an ordained minister.

I've never heard of a school holding a pro-homosexual assembly. I have heard of a gay-straight alliance. I live in a community with a large homosexual population and I'm raising a child in that community. Many times I'm more upset with my rude, loud, troublemaking heterosexual neighbors. The homosexuals seem to keep to themselves.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 08:55 PM

Neither does it make another sin RIGHT by pointing at another one.

BTW ...wasn't this thread about Ron Paul? Funny, how everything comes back to those terrible Repulicans are bankrupting our grandkids because of the Iraq war. And how can you be against gay marriage yet let divorced people marry again? Seems all roads lead to this one arguement. Is it just me? :confused:

read back through the thread.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 09:18 PM

This thread is regarding Ron Paul, I suggest that we stop discussing the topic of homosexuality, and get back onto the discussion of the debate, and Ron Paul.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 09:19 PM

I have read this thread and you still didn't answer my question. Is it just me that your arguement in every thread comes back to the same conclusion. So what is Ron Paul's views on Gay marriage? Remarriage? As I said earlier... it's a RED Herring.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 09:22 PM

I have read this thread and you still didn't answer my question.

what question? about sin? I believe, as I've said before... Sin is sin. I don't judge any one person's sin vs. another.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 09:34 PM

I clarified so there wouldn't be any question what question while you were posting obviously....so

So what is Ron Paul's views on Gay marriage? Remarriage?

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 09:49 PM

I clarified so there wouldn't be any question what question while you were posting obviously....so

So what is Ron Paul's views on Gay marriage? Remarriage?

against gay marriage. unfortunately remarriage isn't something under debate in our country. It's not a popular political debate topic because there are so many divorced and remarried Americans.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 09:50 PM

Nonetheless, sin is sin. Jesus was clear about this. If you think otherwise, tell me the passage. I think you judge some, and then make excuses for othres. I'm sorry to hear about your Mom, but based on the Bible, sin is sin. Are you suggesting the Bible is wrong?

I don't think God is that black and white...I think He had a plan for me and my mom by getting both of us out of a dangerous and life-threatening situation.

There's some things you just know worked out the way they did for a reason. This was one of those things. Today I have a great dad and a lot of opportunities to succeed...my mom has a loving partner who has never laid a hand on her and who, besides the occasional beer, isn't addicted to alcohol or drugs. You can believe what you want, but the hand of God delivered me and my mom to safety.

I've never heard of a school holding a pro-homosexual assembly. I have heard of a gay-straight alliance. I live in a community with a large homosexual population and I'm raising a child in that community. Many times I'm more upset with my rude, loud, troublemaking heterosexual neighbors. The homosexuals seem to keep to themselves.

Maybe you should read the stories I posted on the previous page. I guess you haven't heard about the Boulder High School assembly. I will post the story so you will...

Oh yeah, and the fact that 5,000 schools around the nation observe a Day of Silence where everyone is quiet to celebrate "gay kids" is pretty pro-homosexual, especially when the school I was talking about in that post sent home around 3,000 to 4,000 kids who either protested the Day of Silence or stayed out of school. I think I would do the same thing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55 800

'Have sex, do drugs,' speaker tells students

A guest speaker at an assembly at Boulder High School in Colorado has told students as young as 14 to go have sex and use drugs, prompting school officials to say they will investigate.

The instructions came from Joel Becker, an associate clinical professor of psychology at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately," Becker said during his appearance at the school as part of a recent panel sponsored by the University of Colorado's Conference on World Affairs.

"Why I am going to take that position is because you are going to do it anyway," he continued. "I think as a psychologist and health educator, it is more important to educate you in a direction that you might actually stick to. So, I am going to stay mostly on with the sex side because that is the area I know more about. I want to encourage you to all have healthy, sexual behavior."

WND also has reported on similar assemblies that have been used by schools to promote homosexuality, including one where parents were banned from the event, and a second where WND reported school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

The Boulder school review promise came from board members who were confronted by Boulder High sophomore Daphne White and her mother, Priscilla White, with their complaint about the event.

Priscilla White told board members it's inappropriate for such a message to be delivered by a public school. She was reading excerpts of the presentation to the board when board President Helayne Jones told her to stop, because the language was inappropriate.

"The panel discussion was a completely irresponsible and dangerous invitation to Boulder High students to have sex and take drugs," her daughter, Daphne, told the board.

No student should have been forced to be at that panel discussion, incoming Boulder Valley Supt. Chris King agreed.

The panel included Becker; Andree Gerhardt, a community engagement leader with Ernst & Young; Antonio Sacre, an LA-based performing artist, and Sanho Tree, of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

They were assembled for the discussion as part of the university's Conference on World Affairs, which has been described as a forum for anything.

Conference leaders issued a statement, signed by conference director Jim Palmer and others, saying the panel members talked "candidly and sensibly to the high school audience, providing cautionary information about alcohol consumption, drugs, sexual issues and teens."

The sophomore, Daphne, had been required to attend the panel called "STDs: Sex, Teens and Drugs," and accused panel members of presenting one-sided views and discrediting abstinence.

The White family said the conference statement wasn't even accurate.

"The panelists irresponsibly advised Boulder High students to have sex and use drugs," the family responded. "Teenage abstinence was dismissed as an unwise choice and indicative of religious hang-ups."

"It may be true that the Conference on World Affairs generally 'fosters awareness of local, national and global citizenship and celebrates intellectual discussion and excellence.' It did not in this case," the family continued. "As Daphne suggested at the [recent] school board meeting, Boulder High School, the school district and the CWA should host an assembly at Boulder High for the student body. Hopefully the principal, the deputy superintendent, the board president and the director of the CWA would use the opportunity to offer Boulder High students some sound advice that is more consistent with what teens should hear from adults. They need to do it quickly, graduation is June 2."

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Boulder already is known as a "far left" town.

He played a recording of an "unidentified male" saying: "We all experiment. It's very natural for young people to experiment with same sex relationships. When you are 13, 12, 13, 14 certainly probably one of the most appropriate sexual behaviors would be masturbation. Even today, there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence of ecstasy. If I had some maybe I'd do it with someone, but you know."

The transcript obtained by WND showed those comments also were from Becker.

Dan Caplis, a lawyer and radio talk-show host on KHOW Radio, said the principal should have been fired, but wasn't.

"We had the president of the school board on, as well as the head of the school district. And they just kept dodging us. Finally, we pinned them down and we said don't you agree this was harmful, this was dangerous? Finally, they agreed to that," Caplis reported.

"These experts came in to undermine and contradict everything most parents at that school are trying to teach their kids about sex and drugs. And I believe that a lot of those parents are ready to fight back. But we'll find out in the next few days," Caplis said.

"Perhaps we should open a new wing of the high school and name it 'The Young Brothel Wing,'" wrote an unidentified contributor on a local blog.

Added Louise Benson, on another: "The attitude towards the Whites and the wildly left-wing agenda at BHS as represented by the amazing thinking that a panel encouraging sex and drugs would be just fine is one reason families are fleeing public schools.

"The culture wars really are in full swing in schools," she said.

Zelda, on her "Sleeping Ugly" blog, said parents need to be informed and candid on issues with their children. Addressing the panelists, she wrote, "You, on the other hand, could be a pervert who gets his jollies by talking about sex with minors. And another of my responsibilities as a parent is to make sure you don't have access to my kids until I know for sure you don't have an ulterior motive."

Her conclusion? "Strike 7,867,960,071 against public education."

The conference was begun in 1948 to discuss international affairs, but has expanded to become a conference, as it describes itself, on "Everything Conceivable."

Past participants include Henry Kissinger, Yitzhak Rabin, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ted Turner, Arianna Huffington, Ralph Nader and George McGovern.

You can also read this story if you don't believe a gay agenda is being taught in schools:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54 420

Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:08 PM

I don't think God is that black and white...I think He had a plan for me and my mom by getting both of us out of a dangerous and life-threatening situation.

There's some things you just know worked out the way they did for a reason. This was one of those things. Today I have a great dad and a lot of opportunities to succeed...my mom has a loving partner who has never laid a hand on her and who, besides the occasional beer, isn't addicted to alcohol or drugs. You can believe what you want, but the hand of God delivered me and my mom to safety.

.......Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

I don't doubt that God had a plan for you and your Mom. I do debate whether or not it's Sin. No one put a gun to her head and forced her to marry your bio dad. If you judge others for their decisions, you equally have to judge her.. that's all I'm saying. I've never seen a Bible in gray print. Likewise, other issues are black and white.

As for the rest, I don't think of WorldNetDaily as a reliable, unbiased news source. Let's get back to talking about Ron Paul.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 10:11 PM

I don't doubt that God had a plan for you and your Mom. I do debate whether or not it's Sin. No one put a gun to her head and forced her to marry your bio dad. If you judge others for their decisions, you equally have to judge her.. that's all I'm saying. I've never seen a Bible in gray print. Likewise, other issues are black and white.

You think what you want, but the only way my mom is alive today is because of what she did. I don't think she did anything wrong.

As for the rest, I don't think of WorldNetDaily as a reliable, unbiased news source. Let's get back to talking about Ron Paul.

You don't? Why not? Because it proves you wrong? Yeah, let's get back to talking about Ron Paul. Don't want you to get more humiliated than you already are.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 10:12 PM

So what are some of Ron Paul's ideas you like? dislike?

Using sources from both sides of philosophies as well as (objective sources if you can find them)is usually a good rule of thumb. Gives you backup for your arguements as well as a understanding of the otherside's view.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:16 PM

You think what you want, but the only way my mom is alive today is because of what she did. I don't think she did anything wrong.

You don't? Why not? Because it proves you wrong? Yeah, let's get back to talking about Ron Paul. Don't want you to get more humiliated than you already are.

WorldNetDaily is not unbiased. Your comment is a little rough. I'm not humiliated. It's typical for conservatives like yourself to namecall when you have nothing left. Sad.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:19 PM

So what are some of Ron Paul's ideas you like? dislike?

I like Ron Paul because he believes this war is wrong and immoral. He's the only Republican willing to stand up to GWB and the conservatives. He also believes we are responsible for 9/11 by interfering in the internal affairs of middle eastern countries. We had military bases in their holy land (Saudi Arabia) for years protecting our interests. Could you imagine another country having military bases on our soil? How would we feel.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 10:23 PM

WorldNetDaily is not unbiased. Your comment is a little rough. I'm not humiliated. It's typical for conservatives like yourself to namecall when you have nothing left. Sad.

Most other media has a liberal bias, whether you believe it or not.

WorldNetDaily is a respected news source, especially for Christians. That's why the creator (Joseph Farah) is moderating the next GOP debate, because he's a respected journalist. I mean come on, Chuck Norris writes weekly commentaries on WND! :D

Yeah, that was a little harsh. Sorry about that, but it is funny how you want to change the subject now.

He also believes we are responsible for 9/11 by interfering in the internal affairs of middle eastern countries.

I'm not going to respond to this because I might say something I'll regret, but I will say I liked Giuliani's response to Ron Paul's claim.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:26 PM

Most other media has a liberal bias, whether you believe it or not.

WorldNetDaily is a respected news source, especially for Christians. That's why the creator (Joseph Farah) is moderating the next GOP debate, because he's a respected journalist. I mean come on, Chuck Norris writes weekly commentaries on WND! :D

Yeah, that was a little harsh. Sorry about that, but it is funny how you want to change the subject now.

Look, the only reason I want to change the subject is to get back on topic. I don't want to cause trouble on this board. I just want honest debate. The moderators don't like when things get off topic. I'm not humiliated. I respect your views, but have different ones. I'm no less Christian because of that.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 10:27 PM

I'm no less Christian because of that.

Never said you were...Christians are likely to disagree on politics, but it's interesting to discuss.

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 10:28 PM

I disagree. Most homosexuals are raised by heterosexual parents. And homoexual parents can raise heterosexual children. I don't think discussing something like sexuality can make someone be attracted to someone of the same sex.

Can I ask who exposed you to hardcore mags as a child? A parent? A teacher? other?

While I DO believe some....not all, but some people can be born gay, I also believe that some sexual experimentation is unhealthy and could cause someone to lean the other way. Toward being gay. This experimentation could be influenced by outside sources. With WOMEN this would especially be true. No more comments on this from me, PM me if you have questions.

But, anyway, any explicit activities shown can rub off on a kid. Sex, drug use, violence, paganism, death worship, horror films and even militant-style, radical religious activities or beliefs can and WILL rub off on a child. Anyone who thinks not is only lying to themselves.

Just look at our kids today....AND look at other groups, like conservative Amish, Mennotites or other groups who are NOT influenced by the negative things we are. They have far, far less problems with their kids than we do. These groups are a bit extreme the other way- sheltering too much at times, but nonetheless, their lifestyle and community values speak for themselves.

We are what we see, do and are exposed to.

Oh, the porn mags? A neighbor kid...while my parents were away. I survived but never looked at a woman the same after that.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 10:29 PM

I like Ron Paul because he believes this war is wrong and immoral. He's the only Republican willing to stand up to GWB and the conservatives. He also believes we are responsible for 9/11 by interfering in the internal affairs of middle eastern countries. We had military bases in their holy land (Saudi Arabia) for years protecting our interests. Could you imagine another country having military bases on our soil? How would we feel.
I don't agree with Ron Paul on this practical level but do understand where his argument comes from... the world is moving to a global level with problems that comes with bring cultures together. Basically, we as the United States do not understand Muslim mindset very well. We think the peoples of the Middle East would want democracy but they don't understand it any more than we understand them. Honestly, I don't believe all Muslims want to hurt Christians/Western Culture/Zionists....but many do. What are we suppose to do? Isolationism is just not an option. Do I think we've been naive and bumbled the goal of the war in Iraq -- absolutely.

clemsontigers23

09-09-2007, 10:30 PM

While I DO believe some....not all, but some people can be born gay, I also believe that some sexual expertimentation is unhealthy and could cause someone to lean the other way. Toward being gay. With WOMEN this would especially be true. No more comments on this from me, PM me if you have questions.

But, anyway, any explicit activities shown can rub off on a kid. Sex, drug use, violence, paganism, death worship, horror films and even militant-style, radical religious activities or beliefs can and WILL rub off on a child. Anyone who thinks not is only lying to themselves.

Just look at our kids today....AND look at other groups, like conservative Amish, Mennotites or other groups who are NOT influenced by the negative things we are. They have far, far less problems with their kids than we do. These groups are a bit extreme the other way- sheltering too much at times, but nonetheless, their lifestyle and community values speak for themselves.

We are what we see, do and are exposed to.

Oh, the porn mags? A neighbor kid...while my parents were away. I survived but never looked at a woman the same after that.

I think some are born more susceptible to it, just like some kids are born more susceptible to drug and alcohol addiction, but in the end it's a choice and a result of how parents raise the child.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 10:34 PM

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:36 PM

I think some are born more susceptible to it, just like some kids are born more susceptible to drug and alcohol addiction, but in the end it's a choice and a result of how parents raise the child.
I totally disagree with this. You said how horrible your father was, and you're not gay. I don't think parents raise children to be gay.

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 10:37 PM

I think some are born more susceptible to it, just like some kids are born more susceptible to drug and alcohol addiction, but in the end it's a choice and a result of how parents raise the child.

I disagree to a point I'll say that it is a serious genetic flaw. I have met a LOT of kids,....mostly boys that are the most noticable, and these kids were VERY feminine....and later turned out to be gay. I have spoken to a few gays in my time and asked them some hard questions. Many state that they had affections for the same sex at a VERY early age. I think that says something.

I sort of pity them....as I do other folk with wierd, abnormal ailments....many of which are born with them.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:40 PM

I don't agree with Ron Paul on this practical level but do understand where his argument comes from... the world is moving to a global level with problems that comes with bring cultures together. Basically, we as the United States do not understand Muslim mindset very well. We think the peoples of the Middle East would want democracy but they don't understand it any more than we understand them. Honestly, I don't believe all Muslims want to hurt Christians/Western Culture/Zionists....but many do. What are we suppose to do? Isolationism is just not an option. Do I think we've been naive and bumbled the goal of the war in Iraq -- absolutely.

There are far more Muslims that want to lead normal productive lives, than there are Muslims that want to blow themselves up. We need to look into the root cause of why we are so hated. I truly believe it's because we have interfered in Middle Eastern nations internal affairs.

You ask what we are supposed to do? I say we should leave the internal affairs of other nations to the people of those nations.

mat1583

09-09-2007, 10:40 PM

I don't agree with Ron Paul on this practical level but do understand where his argument comes from... the world is moving to a global level with problems that comes with bring cultures together. Basically, we as the United States do not understand Muslim mindset very well. We think the peoples of the Middle East would want democracy but they don't understand it any more than we understand them. Honestly, I don't believe all Muslims want to hurt Christians/Western Culture/Zionists....but many do. What are we suppose to do? Isolationism is just not an option. Do I think we've been naive and bumbled the goal of the war in Iraq -- absolutely.

Why do you think isolationism isn't an option? There are plenty of developed, industrialized nations doing just fine by not meddling in the affairs of other countries.

-washboard

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 10:41 PM

There are far more Muslims that want to lead normal productive lives, than there are Muslims that want to blow themselves up. We need to look into the root cause of why we are so hated. I truly believe it's because we have interfered in Middle Eastern nations internal affairs.

You ask what we are supposed to do? I say we should leave the internal affairs of other nations to the people of those nations.

So then why Muslims strap bombs to themselves and go into Jewish nightclubs?

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 10:42 PM

The notion that the United States is responsble for 9-11 is perposterious (well unless you're into Conspiracy Theories).

Those who are responsible for 9-11 are the militants who boarded planes that morning with box cutters and knifes.

The Middle East has been a hotbed for militant radicalism ever since the first major oil find.

I heard someone mention that islamofacism was out of vogue until the US trained bin Ladn and his buddies, but perhaps they forget that in the 70's the current President of Iran and some of his buddies stormed the American Embassy and took hostages.

Millions of people around the world disagree with you. Many of these CREDIBLE people feel at the very least, our Govt has covered up something and the official report is a lie. That's at the least.

The US has been playing with Bin Laden, Al Queada and other things in the Middle East for years. In fact, Bin Laden is not even wanted for 911. There's not enough evidence.

I guess it really comes right down to how much you trust our Govt :D

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:42 PM

I disagree to a point I'll say that it is a serious genetic flaw. I have met a LOT of kids,....mostly boys that are the most noticable, and these kids were VERY feminine....and later turned out to be gay. I have spoken to a few gays in my time and asked them some hard questions. Many state that they had affections for the same sex at a VERY early age. I think that says something.

I sort of pity them....as I do other folk with wierd, abnormal ailments....many of which are born with them.

I have the same shared experience. I agree. Some feminine boys I grew up with were teased, abused, mocked, etc. Many of these effeminate boys turned out to be gay. I don't know any kid that would choose to be abused through adolescence.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:44 PM

So then why Muslims strap bombs to themselves and go into Jewish nightclubs?

And the "Christian" Serbs slaughtered Bosnian Muslims... Muslims don't have a monopoly on hateful, evil acts.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:45 PM

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 10:46 PM

Millions of people around the world disagree with you. Many of these CREDIBLE people feel at the very least, our Govt has covered up something and the official report is a lie. That's at the least.

The US has been playing with Bin Laden, Al Queada and other things in the Middle East for years. In fact, Bin Laden is not even wanted for 911. There's not enough evidence.

I guess it really comes right down to how much you trust our Govt :D

Millions of "credible" people don't believe man has been on the moon either...

The problem with conspiracy theories is that the number of people to perputrate and then cover up said theory, make them by virtue of human tendancies impossible.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 10:47 PM

And the "Christian" Serbs slaughtered Bosnian Muslims... Muslims don't have a monopoly on hateful, evil acts.

What about the Chechynians who blew up a school? They were.. what was that, Muslim...

in 2004 Neil Bortz made a challenge that no one could take... Name three conflicts in the word that did not involve Muslims.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 10:50 PM

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:52 PM

What about the Chechynians who blew up a school? They were.. what was that, Muslim...

in 2004 Neil Bortz made a challenge that no one could take... Name three conflicts in the word that did not involve Muslims.

Look, I'm not disagreeing that there are bad, evil Muslims who are out to kill their enemies. But there are also "Christians" such as the "Christian" Serbs who are as ruthless. You said you never hear of Christians strapping bombs to their bodies... usually not. But there are many "Christian" nations who do evil things too.

Also, many Muslims don't share the beliefs of the fundamentalists. In every religion, there are extremeists.

The bottom line is this for me... .I never want to see American attacked again. If it means pulling our troops off all foreign soil, so be it.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 10:53 PM

Why do you think isolationism isn't an option? There are plenty of developed, industrialized nations doing just fine by not meddling in the affairs of other countries.

-washboard

That's because they've got the U.S. to protect them *sarcasm*. They should be stepping up to the task. With the internet, global businesses, issues that effect the entire world, a diverse alien population within the U.S. boarder... we have global interest, period. We were asleep at the wheel on 9/11/01.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:54 PM

And to be honest, The US doesn't have the luxury many other countries have to not be involved in foreign affairs at this moment. We are too dependent on other nations for resources and supplies at this point to make that an impossibiltiy.

I don't advocate things remain the same, but in order for the US to go back to being more of an Isolationist when it comes to Foreign policy the United States needs to become independant of foreign oil.

Do you think GWB cares in the least about energy independence? Flashpack... do you recall GWB walking hand in hand with the Emir of Saudi Arabia? Yet all but a couple of hijackers were Saudi. It makes me sick to think our government would embrace the leaders of a nation that would produce such monsters.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 10:57 PM

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:00 PM

You said you never hear of Christians strapping bombs to their bodies... usually not. You are a Liar, I never said such a thing!

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:01 PM

So then why Muslims strap bombs to themselves and go into Jewish nightclubs?

I was paraphrasing. This is your exact quote. I'm just sayin' there are good and bad people in every religion.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:01 PM

I don't advocate things remain the same, but in order for the US to go back to being more of an Isolationist when it comes to Foreign policy the United States needs to become independant of foreign oil.

Agreed. We need to develop resources that are independent of the rest of the world and we have as much at stake. ...and no matter if you believe in global warming or not...it would be a productive move towards helping the environment.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:02 PM

Do you think GWB cares in the least about energy independence? Flashpack... do you recall GWB walking hand in hand with the Emir of Saudi Arabia? Yet all but a couple of hijackers were Saudi. It makes me sick to think our government would embrace the leaders of a nation that would produce such monsters.

Am I defending GWB? Oh no I am not, quit changing the topic..

The US cannot disengage itself from the world's affairs until we disengage ourselves from foreign oil. No one, not even Ron Paul is really talking about energy dependence...

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:03 PM

I was paraphrasing. This is your exact quote. I'm just sayin' there are good and bad people in every religion.

That wasn't paraphrasing, that was misquoting me to the point of changing the very nature of what I said.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:04 PM

Do you think GWB cares in the least about energy independence? Flashpack... do you recall GWB walking hand in hand with the Emir of Saudi Arabia? Yet all but a couple of hijackers were Saudi. It makes me sick to think our government would embrace the leaders of a nation that would produce such monsters.

I think since 9/11 GWB may have seen the light on this issue. But it's not like we can re-gear every energy using source overnight.

P.S. Both Repulican and Democrat administrations have ignored this one until it because a security issue.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:04 PM

Am I defending GWB? Oh no I am not, quit changing the topic..

The US cannot disengage itself from the world's affairs until we disengage ourselves from foreign oil. No one, not even Ron Paul is really talking about energy dependence...

I'm not changing the topic. I agree...we are a slave to foreign oil. that should be a top question at these debates. what will each candidate do to ensure less energy dependence in the future.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:05 PM

That wasn't paraphrasing, that was misquoting me to the point of changing the very nature of what I said.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... maybe I mistook what you said... were you not suggesting that only Muslims are terrorists? If I mistook what you said, I apologize.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:06 PM

P.S. Both Repulican and Democrat administrations have ignored this one until it because a security issue.

Agreed/

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:06 PM

I'm not changing the topic. I agree...we are a slave to foreign oil. that should be a top question at these debates. what will each candidate do to ensure less energy dependence in the future.

It isn't though is it? The Republicans are not talking about it, the Democrats aren't talking about it, as a matter of fact no one is talking about it...

So you can sit and pick at the republicans all you want but the democrats are not any better. Our country is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:07 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong.... maybe I mistook what you said... were you not suggesting that only Muslims are terrorists? If I mistook what you said, I apologize.

I was pointing out that the target of extremist muslim hatred is not solely directed at the US, or the West for that matter.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:08 PM

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:09 PM

P.S. Both Repulican and Democrat administrations have ignored this one until it because a security issue.

I disagree, both parties continue to ignore it.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:09 PM

I was pointing out that the target of extremist muslim hatred is not solely directed at the US, or the West for that matter.

All I was saying is that there are extremists in every religion.

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:11 PM

I think it's a legitimate question for anyone currently running for President no matter the political party.

I agree. We should be requiring all new vehicles be energy efficient. I suspect the Automobile industry has had technology for years to reduce energy dependence, but they are holding back.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:13 PM

I disagree, both parties continue to ignore it.

Well, then, it's our job to make them pay attention to it. Election season (although early) is already in full swing.

cheewiee

09-09-2007, 11:15 PM

Well, then, it's our job to make them pay attention to it. Election season (although early) is already in full swing.

Good luck with that, let me know if it works...

My faith in our politcal process.. Especially at the federal level is severly diminished..

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:18 PM

I agree. We should be requiring all new vehicles be energy efficient. I suspect the Automobile industry has had technology for years to reduce energy dependence, but they are holding back.

Lots of Lobbyists.

We as a people must demand out of our public servants to do more than wooing of fundraising and their own interest. The must be servants and visionaries for the direction of this country. Now wasn't a number like 100 million dollars would be needed to be a viable candidate for President? Hmm.

sidenote: best line so far I have heard in this primary season

I don't have enough money to buy you...I don't even have enough money to rent you ~ Mike Huckubee

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:21 PM

Lots of Lobbyists.

We as a people must demand out of our public servants to do more than wooing of fundraising and their own interest. The must be servants and visionaries for the direction of this country. Now wasn't a number like 100 million dollars would be needed to be a viable candidate for President? Hmm.

sidenote: best line so far I have heard in this primary season

I don't have enough money to buy you...I don't even have enough money to rent you ~ Mike Huckubee

I'm not a huckabee fan, but he does have an awesome sense of humor.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:22 PM

Good luck with that, let me know if it works...

My faith in our politcal process.. Especially at the federal level is severly diminished..

It's time the people take the process back... (maybe that's the idealist in me speaking)

Jesuslove

09-09-2007, 11:29 PM

It's time the people take the process back... (maybe that's the idealist in me speaking)

I agree. There are close to 20 mainstream (Dem or Rep) candidates running for president. I encourage all Americans to speak up and not settle for the status quo in government.

SonflowerGurl

09-09-2007, 11:35 PM

I agree. There are close to 20 mainstream (Dem or Rep) candidates running for president. I encourage all Americans to speak up and not settle for the status quo in government.

Agreed. No matter which side you political landscape you are on.

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 11:56 PM

Am I defending GWB? Oh no I am not, quit changing the topic..

The US cannot disengage itself from the world's affairs until we disengage ourselves from foreign oil. No one, not even Ron Paul is really talking about energy dependence...

Now, we're talking...

He who controls the oil, controls the world...

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 11:58 PM

Agreed. We need to develop resources that are independent of the rest of the world and we have as much at stake. ...and no matter if you believe in global warming or not...it would be a productive move towards helping the environment.

We have ALL sorts of technologies and renewable resources. Our Govt is deeply connected with big oil and the energy industry. Its all politics and lobbying...

Evanescence

09-09-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:
He also believes we are responsible for 9/11 by interfering in the internal affairs of middle eastern countries.

I'm not going to respond to this because I might say something I'll regret, but I will say I liked Giuliani's response to Ron Paul's claim.

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Jesuslove

09-10-2007, 12:02 AM

We have ALL sorts of technologies and renewable resources. Our Govt is deeply connected with big oil and the energy industry. Its all politics and lobbying...

I agree. I hate to think we invaded Iraq over energy, but I believe if it were not for oil, we wouldn't be there right now.

SonflowerGurl

09-10-2007, 12:08 AM

We have ALL sorts of technologies and renewable resources. Our Govt is deeply connected with big oil and the energy industry. Its all politics and lobbying...

there are technologies that have been in development...but viable alternatives...at best we have hybrids that still run on gasoline. And don't give me a solar powered car because there aren't any that are cheap enough, good enough to viable at this time.

But it is time we start making the change.

Evanescence

09-10-2007, 12:37 AM

I like Ron Paul because he believes this war is wrong and immoral. He's the only Republican willing to stand up to GWB and the conservatives. He also believes we are responsible for 9/11 by interfering in the internal affairs of middle eastern countries. We had military bases in their holy land (Saudi Arabia) for years protecting our interests. Could you imagine another country having military bases on our soil? How would we feel.

Amen to that.

This is why the USA's globalist, empirical way of thinking should be alarming. Further, the means to which we got to thisd point is also suspisicous...

We have bases worldwide...why don't other countries have them here?

Because we want to rule the world...the leader of the NWO.

People need to open their eyes and stop sticking up for these madmen !!!!

mat1583

09-10-2007, 01:37 AM

That's because they've got the U.S. to protect them *sarcasm*. They should be stepping up to the task. With the internet, global businesses, issues that effect the entire world, a diverse alien population within the U.S. boarder... we have global interest, period. We were asleep at the wheel on 9/11/01.

There's a difference between being concerned with global interests such as trade and commerce and then actually invading a country to oust a leader then try to create a democracy. If we're so concerned about creating democracies, then why don't we just invade China and free their people? We hate communism, right?

In all seriousness, isolationism does not entail closing borders and prohibiting trade with other countries. It simply means that we pull troops out of countries we have no business being in. We only help when called upon and only go to war WHEN WE DECLARE IT through legal means. Our foreign policy before WWII was completely isolationist. After that our leaders started getting the idea that it was better for us to stick out fingers into the beehive. What happened? We've been stung time after time.

p.s. Ron Paul is all about isolationism, but this doesn't mean our country would just go and bury our heads in the sand. We're still concerned about global issues, we still trade, etc. We just don't meddle in the affairs of other countries - no invading, no preemptive strikes, no forcing democracy upon nations.

-washboard

Jesuslove

09-10-2007, 09:19 AM

There's a difference between being concerned with global interests such as trade and commerce and then actually invading a country to oust a leader then try to create a democracy. If we're so concerned about creating democracies, then why don't we just invade China and free their people? We hate communism, right?

In all seriousness, isolationism does not entail closing borders and prohibiting trade with other countries. It simply means that we pull troops out of countries we have no business being in. We only help when called upon and only go to war WHEN WE DECLARE IT through legal means. Our foreign policy before WWII was completely isolationist. After that our leaders started getting the idea that it was better for us to stick out fingers into the beehive. What happened? We've been stung time after time.

p.s. Ron Paul is all about isolationism, but this doesn't mean our country would just go and bury our heads in the sand. We're still concerned about global issues, we still trade, etc. We just don't meddle in the affairs of other countries - no invading, no preemptive strikes, no forcing democracy upon nations.

-washboard
I agree with what you wrote! For too long, Americans have stuck their heads in the sand regarding the actions of our government. Three years ago on this board, I was despised for suggesting this war was wrong and that we should not be interfering in other countries' affairs. It's nice to know that people on both ends of the political spectrum (on this board) can come together and agree on this issue.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-10-2007, 10:45 AM

For anyone who's interested, Ron Paul will be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight (Monday 10th) at 8pm est.

Also, a new video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DqY8iIxe2c) for anyone interested.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-10-2007, 10:52 AM

Three years ago on this board, I was despised for suggesting this war was wrong and that we should not be interfering in other countries' affairs.

haha! I remember that. My apologies, if I was one of those posters.

clemsontigers23

09-10-2007, 05:08 PM

I totally disagree with this. You said how horrible your father was, and you're not gay. I don't think parents raise children to be gay.

My mom and bio father divorced when I was 2. He didn't get a chance to raise me.

Jesuslove

09-10-2007, 05:22 PM

My mom and bio father divorced when I was 2. He didn't get a chance to raise me.

I just don't think it would have made a difference either way.

Evanescence

09-10-2007, 05:41 PM

Yeah, its amazing how little we know about what goes on...

Just take for example these three quotes. The last one, from David Rockefeller is the most disturbing....

--------------------------------------------------

BUSH & GORBACHEV ADMIT WORLD GOVERNMENT AIMS
As George Bush Sr. said in September 1990, on his way to meet Mikhail Gorbachev in Helsinki, Finland, “the foundation for the new world order would be laid in Helsinki”.

In 1988, in an address to the United Nations, Gorbachev himself said, “Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order”.

Many people pass the idea of a prophetic one world government as nothing but a “conspiracy theory”. This is the view of a person not able or unwilling to think critically. A person with this viewpoint is ignoring the facts of governmental policy the world over. We are fast moving toward the prophetic one world government talked about for years now.

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS SILENCE

Consider more words from one of the world’s most influential and diabolical characters representing the world’s banking cabal in charge of the prophetic one world government movement, “… it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government …”

- David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world government.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-10-2007, 06:47 PM

(from earlier in the thread)
All while true, become much more inflamitory when America is viewed as a Pro Zionist state....

I was doing some research and read one of Bin Laden's video today. You were right about a large part of it being the result of our backing of Israel as he had this to say:

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. The bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood, and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents rockets raining down on our homes without mercy the situations was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but didn't respond. In those difficult moments, many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy while resistance is terrorism and intolerance. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children -- also in Iraq -- as Bush Jr. did in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages. So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs.

Makes you think, if China had sent over troops to help Canada invade Michigan then I'd assume some of us would have a pretty big problem with it. Still doesn't justify killing almost 4000 innocent lives, but I must also say that retaliating as we are doesn't justify killing several of Iraqi civilians either. Or Operation Peace of the Galilee for that matter.

clemsontigers23

09-10-2007, 06:55 PM

Jesuslove

09-10-2007, 08:00 PM

cheewiee

09-10-2007, 11:16 PM

(from earlier in the thread)

I was doing some research and read one of Bin Laden's video today. You were right about a large part of it being the result of our backing of Israel as he had this to say:

Makes you think, if China had sent over troops to help Canada invade Michigan then I'd assume some of us would have a pretty big problem with it. Still doesn't justify killing almost 4000 innocent lives, but I must also say that retaliating as we are doesn't justify killing several of Iraqi civilians either. Or Operation Peace of the Galilee for that matter.

To make your analogy accurate, you would have to point out that Michigan was already attacking Canada.

Israel has been attacked constantly since it's inception. At the time a majority of Jews promoted the idea of a Jewish Nation in South America. It was the UN who bullied Israel to be in a place where it would be under constant agression from all sides.

The reason the Palestinians don't currently have their own land, is because throughout the 50's, 60's and early 70's they let other countries march through their land to invade Israel.

Jesuslove

09-11-2007, 09:21 AM

To make your analogy accurate, you would have to point out that Michigan was already attacking Canada.

Israel has been attacked constantly since it's inception. At the time a majority of Jews promoted the idea of a Jewish Nation in South America. It was the UN who bullied Israel to be in a place where it would be under constant agression from all sides.

The reason the Palestinians don't currently have their own land, is because throughout the 50's, 60's and early 70's they let other countries march through their land to invade Israel.

Could you imagine being a Palestinean (many are Christian) and your own personally owned land was strong armed away from you... .whether or not you agreed with radicals coming in and invading Israel, you wouldn't be defending Israel.

Jesuslove

09-11-2007, 09:23 AM

I agree that it's about our support of Israel, but I don't agree with anyone's assessment that we should stop backing Israel. Turning our backs on God's Promised Land wouldn't be good for the US in the end times.

So what you are saying is that the Israelites can do whatever they want in the Middle East and can count on our support. I wouldn't want that. Israel has been heavy handed with the Palestineans and others. The Middle Eastern countries hate us because they don't feel We (the Americans) are fair. No matter what, our government comes to the defense of Israel.

cheewiee

09-11-2007, 09:23 AM

Could you imagine being a Palestinean (many are Christian) and your own personally owned land was strong armed away from you... .whether or not you agreed with radicals coming in and invading Israel, you wouldn't be defending Israel.

Israel as a sovereign nation has a right to protect her sovereignty.

The Palestinian leaders failed Palestine, and now they want to blame Israel.

Jesuslove

09-11-2007, 09:26 AM

Israel as a sovereign nation has a right to protect her sovereignty.

The Palestinian leaders failed Palestine, and now they want to blame Israel.

I know a Plaestinian family living near me. They are Christian. They had a home in what is today Israel. They were middle class citizens. The government of Israel came into their home, forced them out and seized their property. I have heard many stories like this. Whether Palestianian citizens supported the radicals or not, they were held accountable as if they did.

Could you imagine Americans being persecuted who didn't support GWB, but are being held accountable for his actions? Not fair!

cheewiee

09-11-2007, 10:01 AM

I know a Plaestinian family living near me. They are Christian. They had a home in what is today Israel. They were middle class citizens. The government of Israel came into their home, forced them out and seized their property. I have heard many stories like this. Whether Palestianian citizens supported the radicals or not, they were held accountable as if they did.

Could you imagine Americans being persecuted who didn't support GWB, but are being held accountable for his actions? Not fair!

Your comparing Apples to Oranges...

WeaselInYerFoot

09-11-2007, 10:18 AM

I agree that it's about our support of Israel, but I don't agree with anyone's assessment that we should stop backing Israel. Turning our backs on God's Promised Land wouldn't be good for the US in the end times.

The Promised Land is no more. At least for the time being, because their covenant was broken when Christ was sacrificed. However, the covenant will be renewed at the return of Christ, but he certainly won't need a petty nation (in comparison to Him) to help him get it back. These prophecies, and our assertion of them does not in any way justify killing.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-11-2007, 10:21 AM

To make your analogy accurate, you would have to point out that Michigan was already attacking Canada.

Israel has been attacked constantly since it's inception. At the time a majority of Jews promoted the idea of a Jewish Nation in South America. It was the UN who bullied Israel to be in a place where it would be under constant agression from all sides.

The reason the Palestinians don't currently have their own land, is because throughout the 50's, 60's and early 70's they let other countries march through their land to invade Israel.

ok, my bad. So lets change the analogy to China taking Michigan away from us to create a new nation, so we retaliate. Then this new nation gets mad and decides to invade Illinois with the help of China.

This Land will rightfully belong Israel again, but not because of us.

This is a whole other discussion for another thread though.

cheewiee

09-11-2007, 12:15 PM

ok, my bad. So lets change the analogy to China taking Michigan away from us to create a new nation, so we retaliate. Then this new nation gets mad and decides to invade Illinois with the help of China.

This Land will rightfully belong Israel again, but not because of us.

This is a whole other discussion for another thread though.

Well then Michigan wouldn't have been part of the US, but rather a UN Sanctioned governing Zone of a former British Colony, and it wouldn't have been china taking Michigan away it would be the UN...

The point is, there isn't a simple solution to the problems in the Middle East. People don't wish to forgive and forget. The Jews didn't ask for Palestine, that's where the UN put them. Their Neighbors didn't like the fact that there was a Jewish nation in their backyard and started war after war, until Israel stepped up and put a stop to it.

We can't go back in time, as many would suggest so peace in the region would depend upon Jews and Arabs putting the past behind them and forgiving one another for atrocious deeds, and really to be honest of the two sides, the isralies in recent history seem to be the ones more concilitory.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-11-2007, 01:03 PM

The Promised Land is no more. At least for the time being, because their covenant was broken when Christ was sacrificed. However, the covenant will be renewed at the return of Christ, but he certainly won't need a petty nation (in comparison to Him) to help him get it back. These prophecies, and our assertion of them does not in any way justify killing.

I'm gonna take this back for now if you all would be so kind to allow me. Someone I was talking to mentioned the renewing of a covenant during the Last Supper. I'd like to do some more research on this.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-11-2007, 02:38 PM

By the way, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg) one of the most comprehensive videos about Ron Paul. It's a real interview, done by Google, fair and balanced. They frequently do interviews with famous and interesting people without bias. It's 65 minutes long, but it's a good start on learning about Ron Paul.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-11-2007, 02:49 PM

Well then Michigan wouldn't have been part of the US, but rather a UN Sanctioned governing Zone of a former British Colony, and it wouldn't have been china taking Michigan away it would be the UN...

The point is, there isn't a simple solution to the problems in the Middle East. People don't wish to forgive and forget. The Jews didn't ask for Palestine, that's where the UN put them. Their Neighbors didn't like the fact that there was a Jewish nation in their backyard and started war after war, until Israel stepped up and put a stop to it.

We can't go back in time, as many would suggest so peace in the region would depend upon Jews and Arabs putting the past behind them and forgiving one another for atrocious deeds, and really to be honest of the two sides, the isralies in recent history seem to be the ones more concilitory.

Fair enough, my analogy was far from being accurate. But staying there and performing nation building is still far from being the solution. We're doing more harm and causing more frustration towards by staying there. Specially when the "supposed" reason for being there is catching Bin Laden who is Pakistan...a country we're technically allied with.

I believe that the right solution is to leave. Let the citizens of Iraq work this out, as they wished to do when they attempted to topple Hussein. Let Israel defend itself with its 2,000+ nukes. And tell Pakistan "we're going in, getting Bin Laden, then we're leaving. Stay out of our way.". Then come home strengthen our borders, reform immigration policies, and concern ourselves with the economy and developing energy independence. Not an easy task. But it's one that doesn't lead to a path of destruction and bankruptcy. Sacrifice? perhaps. But I see hard work and dedication to this would bring a better future to our children, rather than continuous political involvement in an unstable 10-40 window.

WeaselInYerFoot

09-12-2007, 10:56 AM

Here's a good video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE) explaining the concept of "blowbacks" as a result of the last half century.

Jesuslove

09-12-2007, 01:24 PM

Here's a good video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE) explaining the concept of "blowbacks" as a result of the last half century.

Excellent video. It's the tip of the iceberg though. We've been involved with brutal leaders around the world for a long time, even in the Western Hemisphere. Thanks for sharing. Everyone should take a minute and watch.

mat1583

09-18-2007, 03:42 PM

Here's another great GREAT video of Dr. Paul at the Values Voters debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRi8tswSkB4

In this video he outlines excellent reasons for smaller government AND Christian reasons for not going to war! It's pretty amazing, and a wake up call.

What upsets me is that at the very last part of his speech he says that "If we would have the war declared war [...], we wouldn't be debating the war now, it would be over, and we would all be a lot better off, and we'd have 5,000 Americans still alive and 30,000 uninjured!" ... and then the crowd Boos him...for insisting we declare war and wanting to have 5,000 Americans still alive. Are those people seriously booing him for wanting 5,000 soldiers to still be alive?

-washboard

WeaselInYerFoot

09-19-2007, 03:49 PM

Yeah... unfortunately, many Christians have now become Christ centered jihadists. A bitter taste of irony imho.

mat1583

10-17-2007, 04:30 PM

Ron Paul has said it over and over again, and now there's a documentary being shown which shows insurgents even confirming what Ron Paul has been saying about us being in Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/mitchell.meetingresistanc e/index.html

[...]

The documentary, "Meeting Resistance," was shot just after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The filmmakers, Molly Bingham and Steve Connors, spent months following a handful of Iraqi insurgents. They say it's a fractured group united by both fierce nationalism and by a religious obligation to expel a non-Muslim occupying force.

"If someone comes and occupies another man's home and takes away his food, money and property, how could he not defend himself?," one Iraqi insurgent says in the film. "A person who doesn't fight for himself or his country shouldn't be called a human being."

Before the war he was a teacher. Now, he said, his job is killing American troops.

[...]

All of the insurgents in the documentary talk of the humiliation of occupation. Connors said "honor" was a word he heard frequently from the fighters. They also talk about the concept of a jihad that requires them to fight a foreign invader who is not Muslim.

[...]

The filmmakers say it's important for the troops and the American public to think about why the enemy is fighting. And to think about how they would answer this question, posed by an imam in the film:

"Suppose Iraq invaded America. An Iraqi soldier was on a tank passing through an American street, waving his gun at people, threatening them, raiding and trashing houses. Would you accept that?"

----------------------------------------

Dr. Paul has already asked this question many times at debates, yet other candidates either never answer it or just laugh it off. How can you possibly ignore a documentary like this with real proof that they are killing Americans simply because we are occupying their country?

-washboard

clemsontigers23

10-17-2007, 05:28 PM

Yeah... unfortunately, many Christians have now become Christ centered jihadists. A bitter taste of irony imho.

Oh come on. Just because many Christians see some wars as being necessary in some situations doesn't mean we're becoming jihadists. Pro-war is not the same as jihadist.

mat1583

10-17-2007, 08:24 PM

Oh come on. Just because many Christians see some wars as being necessary in some situations doesn't mean we're becoming jihadists. Pro-war is not the same as jihadist.

What on earth? That's not even what he said. What I think he meant is that there are some so-called Christians are pro-war because we are fighting against Islamic extremists who think they should kill anyone that is not Muslim. In other words, some Christians don't see it as a war against terrorism, but instead a war against Islam.

And why did you respond to a month-old post instead of mine? :dunno:

-washboard

clemsontigers23

10-17-2007, 08:31 PM

What on earth? That's not even what he said. What I think he meant is that there are some so-called Christians are pro-war because we are fighting against Islamic extremists who think they should kill anyone that is not Muslim. In other words, some Christians don't see it as a war against terrorism, but instead a war against Islam.

And why did you respond to a month-old post instead of mine? :dunno:

-washboard

I never saw that one.

mat1583

10-17-2007, 09:04 PM

I never saw that one.

It's all good :) Sometimes I jump on a comment before I see the rest of a thread too.

-washboard