bushie boy

[jefhatfield]

does george w bush seem presidential yet?

do you miss clinton?

would gore have been better?

how about ralph nader?

[eyelikeart]

I think Bush has handled himself quite well since 9-11. Yes, I did vote for him, but I am still very impressed at how well he's doing. He doesn't seem like a "president" so much as he does a "person."

Gore...please. :rolleyes: Can u imagine what ***** we'd be in if he had been in office during these times?!

Clinton I could give a rat's ass about (right Alpha? ;)). He didn't do all that much for us during his time in office. I'm sure I'm one of the many who's glad he's gone now.

Nader...hmm...I cannot wait to see the responses on this one. I'm indifferent.

[jelloshotsrule]

when i listen to bush talk or see him, i laugh... which is cool to me. but then again, maybe i shouldn't....

gore would be no better, not much different. he's owned too.


nader.... yes!

i am not sure how he'd have responded to the attack but i'm sure it would have been pretty interesting and unlike most others would do.... it's at least interesting to think about what it would be like to have nader as president. considering he dislikes probably 98% of the politicians in congress.... too bad.

2004!

[coolocity]

Bush is doing a great job. Clinton would have avoided war any way he could, proboblly causing more attacks in the US.

Commenting on your sig.. if you keep posting 100 topics a day, sure, you'll make it to 2,000 :p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I think Bush has handled himself quite well since 9-11. Yes, I did vote for him, but I am still very impressed at how well he's doing. He doesn't seem like a "president" so much as he does a "person."

Gore...please. :rolleyes: Can u imagine what ***** we'd be in if he had been in office during these times?!

Clinton I could give a rat's ass about (right Alpha? ;)). He didn't do all that much for us during his time in office. I'm sure I'm one of the many who's glad he's gone now.

Nader...hmm...I cannot wait to see the responses on this one. I'm indifferent.

oh, this is juicy stuff!

i think bush handled himself well since being elected...so i agree with you there

about gore, i disagree with you... he would do the same as bush and go after the terrorists and i think he would do a good job

clinton was good for the us economy and a pro business democrat so i take a different stance than you

and nader...i agree with you...i still would have to see what he says on the issues of today...he may still be a force in 2004...and be the ace that the republicans need again to win

[mischief]

I voted Gore as a "NO" vote for Bush.

Personally I think any idiot that respires regularly with as many advisers as the average POTUSA has looks great after **** like 9/11, they just can't help but look good.

I think that if 2 terms wasn't the limit we'd have had Reagan untill the old geezerly puppet died then swe'd have 4 terms of Clinton.

Nader wrote 1 good muckraking book about the auto industry. I wouldn't vote Nader if my life depended on it. He'd fold in the first real chrisis.

Gore? we'll never know. End of story. I think Gore and Dubyaw have more in common than anyone wants to think about.

George Carlin for President!!!

Giuido Sarducci for Pope!!!

:D

I want to add that if we could vote "yes" for one candidate or "no" ( negating someone elses "yes") for another voter turnout would triple.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by mischief

George Carlin for President!!!

ha ha ha!!! :D I could just imagine what it would be like if Carlin or even Dennis Leary were president...

But seriously...with Bush...I thought it was great how they showcased his physically active lifestyle all over the news. One thing for sure, the U.S. may be the most powerful country in the world, but damn we're lazy!! :eek: :rolleyes: ;)

[sturm375]

Any idiot would have had the same response to 9/11.

He's a Republican:(

40% Steel Tarrifs:mad:

80% increase in farming subsidies:mad:

By executive order(That means Bush is directly responsible):
-a Kangaroo court for the POWs that arn't called POWs. They may eventually get a trial, but even if the outcome of the trial is an acuitial, Bush, or Rumsfield retain the ability to hold that person indefinatly.

-An increase in the use of Secret Eveidence(sp?). Don't we have the right to face our accuser, even if that accuser is some secret documents? How can someone defend themselves if the government can essentially say: "He's guilty, because I said so."

-Holding an American citizen without trial, grand jury, or even a visit by his lawyer. This directly defies both the 5th and 6th Admendment of our Bill of Rights.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Especially considering the last part, I have already written letters to my reps and senators calling for the removal of Bush. He has broken his Oath of Office, and therefore cannot legally serve as the President, even in times of war!

In case you didn't catch it, I think Bush is an A-Hole. And I don't care who runs against him, I will not vote for George W. "the Dictator" Bush.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mischief


Nader wrote 1 good muckraking book about the auto industry. I wouldn't vote Nader if my life depended on it. He'd fold in the first real chrisis.


my fear is that his lack of political experience would make him strike too hard and be too extreme

one has to tread lightly and carefully in politics...a loose cannon like nader seems to be at times can hurt him...look at newt gingrich, the all time famous loose cannon, yet he was arguably one of the smartest pols out there with his phd and professorship at a great university...but his emotion and scene stealing made him look like an idiot a lot

[3rdpath]

i don't like bush and i think his middle east policies( and posturing) are laughable.

he looks like he's wearing a suit and shoes that are too big for him...

and he'll always be some spoiled kid who rode into office on his father's somewhat soiled coat-tails.

do i miss clinton? no
would gore be better? no
and nader wouldn't be able to get anything done within the spoils system.

dad leaves saddam in place
dubya leaves osama

the future looks pretty grim.:eek:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
i don't like bush and i think his middle east policies( and posturing) are laughable.

he looks like he's wearing a suit and shoes that are too big for him...

and he'll always be some spoiled kid who rode into office on his father's somewhat soiled coat-tails.

do i miss clinton? no
would gore be better? no
and nader wouldn't be able to get anything done within the spoils system.

dad leaves saddam in place
dubya leaves osama

the future looks pretty grim.:eek:

the future of iraq was uncertain if we had overthrown sadaam's govt...our goal was to get him out of kuwait and not escalate...like vietnam

and about osama...w will get him if he gets the chance and bring him to justice

i say kill or capture al qaeda and if we capture osama, jail him for life

do not execute these terrorists because doing that would make them martyrs and open up a pandora's box for many generations to come...let us not make these men into heroes by executing them

just jail them and have them be forgotten

yesterday's terrorist heroes end up being forgotten in time...in the nineties, the last major nazi war criminal died in prison and for the life of me, i can't remember his name

[eyelikeart]

I think the point is it wouldn't matter who was president...

no matter who it was...he/she (hey u never know ;)) would be criticized by someone for what they do...

not everyone is going to agree on one person ever...I guess it's why I don't fight much for the cause...:rolleyes:

[Royal Pineapple]

Originally posted by mischief

George Carlin for President!!!

Giuido Sarducci for Pope!!!

:D

hell yes, id vote for him, and as for giuido, hed make a fine pope, but he have to change his name to: Pope Corky IX
i think you'd have to skip straight to the ninth just to give him some credibility:D

[krossfyter]

even though george carlin is a funny guy.. i dont want that guy as president. his good at political comedy not practicality.

[krossfyter]

as for nader....


WHATEVER! his chopping down the military to the equivalent of a simple mouse trap is not going to cut it in this kind of world. its just not practical. hes a good vote taker though.

[Durandal7]

Bush: He has handled himself fine. Some things I disagree with, but all around not too shabby.

Gore: Would have handled himself about the same s bushie boy. I just don't like him.

Clinton: I have seen NO compelling evidence that he did s*** for the economy. The economy went to hell because of bad accounting and the realization that dot-com companies made no money. It doesn't matter who is in office. (Cutting back the military and raising taxes, that always helps he economy :rolleyes: )

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by sturm375
Any idiot would have had the same response to 9/11.
By executive order(That means Bush is directly responsible):
-a Kangaroo court for the POWs that arn't called POWs. They may eventually get a trial, but even if the outcome of the trial is an acuitial, Bush, or Rumsfield retain the ability to hold that person indefinatly.

-An increase in the use of Secret Eveidence(sp?). Don't we have the right to face our accuser, even if that accuser is some secret documents? How can someone defend themselves if the government can essentially say: "He's guilty, because I said so."

-Holding an American citizen without trial, grand jury, or even a visit by his lawyer. This directly defies both the 5th and 6th Admendment of our Bill of Rights.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Especially considering the last part, I have already written letters to my reps and senators calling for the removal of Bush. He has broken his Oath of Office, and therefore cannot legally serve as the President, even in times of war!

In case you didn't catch it, I think Bush is an A-Hole. And I don't care who runs against him, I will not vote for George W. "the Dictator" Bush.

Ok, you knew it was only a matter of time. First off, read the 5th ammendment a little closer, and you will see that it is legal. The same thing has been before the Supreme Court before, and already decided. So you know what? Why give them the rights that Americans get? They are not Americans, they are terrorists, and would slit your throat if you put them in a room with them and give them a knife. Grow up and realize that these are not nice people that we are dealing with.
****** your treasonist statements. Go fight for Osama if you want, leave. I feel very strongly about this. You can have your opinion, but how do you think that he has violated his oath of office. Please genious, I cannot wait to hear this.:mad:

[MrsBacktothemac]

Sorry I have not been around much, but parton me while I say how I feel about this....

Sterm before you start accusing our President of treason, do something that most people who run their mouths should do first. Read the whole 5th ammendment, and don't pick out the one line that benifits your cause.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by sturm375
Any idiot would have had the same response to 9/11.

He's a Republican:(

40% Steel Tarrifs:mad:

80% increase in farming subsidies:mad:

By executive order(That means Bush is directly responsible):
-a Kangaroo court for the POWs that arn't called POWs. They may eventually get a trial, but even if the outcome of the trial is an acuitial, Bush, or Rumsfield retain the ability to hold that person indefinatly.

-An increase in the use of Secret Eveidence(sp?). Don't we have the right to face our accuser, even if that accuser is some secret documents? How can someone defend themselves if the government can essentially say: "He's guilty, because I said so."

-Holding an American citizen without trial, grand jury, or even a visit by his lawyer. This directly defies both the 5th and 6th Admendment of our Bill of Rights.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Especially considering the last part, I have already written letters to my reps and senators calling for the removal of Bush. He has broken his Oath of Office, and therefore cannot legally serve as the President, even in times of war!

In case you didn't catch it, I think Bush is an A-Hole. And I don't care who runs against him, I will not vote for George W. "the Dictator" Bush.

I must say sturm you are part of the problem with this country. People like you do not realize how great this country is. As B2TM and Mrs.B2TM have pointed out, you either haven't read the constitution or are distorting it to your purposes.

If you think George W. is a dictator than get out of the country. People are fleeing places like Cuba because they have a dictator. Before you go shooting your mouth, why don't you live as a citizen in a country with a real military dictator? I'm sure that when you got back you would quite like it here regardless of the president's political party.

You think that Bush is treasonous??? I think that you are treasonous! Treason can be considered as giving comfort to the enemy and I'm sure that they are comforted by the fact that you are undermining our government.

I am sincerely tired of people like you. Go to ********** Iraq and experience a real dictator, we don't need your kind here.

[jefhatfield]

great to hear from you, mrs b2tm!

bush is not a dictator or power hungry from what i can see

now newt gingrich was and he knew what any high school civics student knew, that the speaker of the house was the real power in the free world

i guess if almost anybody were in newt's position, the power might go to their head...republican or democrat

i spent years fearing the man knowing just how powerful someone like that was...he and the senate majority/minority leader run what happens "behind closed doors" where the scrutiny is not the same as the white house and where real power is yielded

maybe the federal reserve is the only entity that has more power, but somehow with the likes of newt and tip o'neil around, the speaker is the real point man for the free world...for better or worse

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
great to hear from you, mrs b2tm!

bush is not a dictator or power hungry from what i can see

now newt gingrich was and he knew what any high school civics student knew, that the speaker of the house was the real power in the free world

i guess if almost anybody were in newt's position, the power might go to their head...republican or democrat

i spent years fearing the man knowing just how powerful someone like that was...he and the senate majority/minority leader run what happens "behind closed doors" where the scrutiny is not the same as the white house and where real power is yielded

maybe the federal reserve is the only entity that has more power, but somehow with the likes of newt and tip o'neil around, the speaker is the real point man for the free world...for better or worse


nah man... alan greenspan is the most powerful person in the free world.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by MrsBacktothemac
Sorry I have not been around much, but parton me while I say how I feel about this....

Sterm before you start accusing our President of treason, do something that most people who run their mouths should do first. Read the whole 5th ammendment, and don't pick out the one line that benifits your cause.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I still live in America. Freedom of Speech? I believe that I am still free to criticise my government with whatever words I wish. Before you go accusing someone of Treason, maybe you should read the 1st Amendment. If Padillia (accused dirty bomber), or anyone else is CONVICTED of terrorist acts in a court of law, I fully support punishment to the fullest extent of the law. Until then, those accused are innocent.

The 5th Admendment:
"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now if I remember my english class right, each semi-colon indicates a new, independent thought, so:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Each of those is a complete and independent thought. Bush has deprived Padillia of his liberty without due process of law, and has therefore broken his Oath of Office. Therefore, he is in my opinion, unfit for the office.

Again, I am not a legal scholar, so if there is anybody out there with better knowledge than I, please correct me. I have heard on the news that 3 times this type of action by a sitting president has been called into question by the Supreme Court. All 3 times the court has ruled in favor of individual rights. The three incidents occured during: 1) The Civil War 2) WW1 3) WW2. Each case was tried well after the incident.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by krossfyter



nah man... alan greenspan is the most powerful person in the free world.


that's true. that's what my businesswoman girlfriend taught me.... i laughed. and tried to convince her i am...... am i? eh?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by sturm375


Correct me if I am wrong here, but I still live in America. Freedom of Speech? I believe that I am still free to criticise my government with whatever words I wish. Before you go accusing someone of Treason, maybe you should read the 1st Amendment. If Padillia (accused dirty bomber), or anyone else is CONVICTED of terrorist acts in a court of law, I fully support punishment to the fullest extent of the law. Until then, those accused are innocent.

The 5th Admendment:
"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now if I remember my english class right, each semi-colon indicates a new, independent thought, so:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Each of those is a complete and independent thought. Bush has deprived Padillia of his liberty without due process of law, and has therefore broken his Oath of Office. Therefore, he is in my opinion, unfit for the office.

Again, I am not a legal scholar, so if there is anybody out there with better knowledge than I, please correct me. I have heard on the news that 3 times this type of action by a sitting president has been called into question by the Supreme Court. All 3 times the court has ruled in favor of individual rights. The three incidents occured during: 1) The Civil War 2) WW1 3) WW2. Each case was tried well after the incident.

that is remarkably well thought out, sturm

it is hard to imagine what padilla was thinking if he did work for al qaeda, but perhaps due to the evidence against him, he could be seen as an enemy combatant since we are at war with al qaeda and osama bin laden (and maybe other terrorists, too)

i don't know where padilla falls...as an illegally held us citizen or an enemy caught during war

whatever happens, we do not have the right to treat him poorly while he awaits trial because if we did, then the terrorist have already won the war

al qaeda's goal is to make us paranoid and a police state...not to overthrow the us...they know they can't do that in a million years

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by sturm375


Correct me if I am wrong here, but I still live in America. Freedom of Speech? I believe that I am still free to criticise my government with whatever words I wish. Before you go accusing someone of Treason, maybe you should read the 1st Amendment. If Padillia (accused dirty bomber), or anyone else is CONVICTED of terrorist acts in a court of law, I fully support punishment to the fullest extent of the law. Until then, those accused are innocent.

The 5th Admendment:
"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now if I remember my english class right, each semi-colon indicates a new, independent thought, so:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Each of those is a complete and independent thought. Bush has deprived Padillia of his liberty without due process of law, and has therefore broken his Oath of Office. Therefore, he is in my opinion, unfit for the office.

Again, I am not a legal scholar, so if there is anybody out there with better knowledge than I, please correct me. I have heard on the news that 3 times this type of action by a sitting president has been called into question by the Supreme Court. All 3 times the court has ruled in favor of individual rights. The three incidents occured during: 1) The Civil War 2) WW1 3) WW2. Each case was tried well after the incident.

Ok, first off, the Mrs did not call you a traitor, I did. That being said, the case has been before the supreme court, and no, they did not rull for individual liberty. No right, and I mean no right is absolute. You have to look at the bigger picture. We are at war. It is not a declared war due to restrictions by our unconstitutuional membership in the UN, but that is another debate. These people are the enemy. They are going to be tried in a military court due to the nature of the information that is being discussed in the trial. Having worked at the CIA, the field agents do not want there name out there in the public, nor would I.

These people want to murder us. They have said that they want to kill 4 million people, and 1 million children. You have any kids? I bet you don't. If you did you would want these Ba$tards dead first. They will get a trial, but is will not be in a civilian court. They are not members of our society, and thus are not protected by the rights that we live by. Do they have a right to vote in our country? Do they have a right to run for Office? Do they have the right to even friggin be here? Damn, again, GROW UP, and realize that everything in life is not absolute. Rights come with a price. Can British people vote here? You move to Saudi Arabia, and commit a crime. Are they going to try you by there laws, or ours.

In my opinion, prove guilt, and then shoot them in their friggin heads. Either that, or bring them down here and let us Southern boys deal with them. It is not a question of right or wrong, it is not a question of the 5th ammendment, the 5th ammendment doesnt apply because they are not members of our society, and as it says during time of war. All Bush would have to do is declare them a Clear and Present Danger, and then it doesn't matter anyway. Actually, that is what he basically has done.

Now, I believe in My God, My Country, and my family. Bush is my President. You can say whatever you want, but calling for him to be removed from office, is stupid, uneducated, and treason. I did not like Clinton, I hated him actually, but you know what. If someone would have call him a traitor I would have responded the same way.

Sorry for the rant everyone, but my country, and my President mean a lot to me. They both have MY RESPECT!

--
At least you were smart enough not to be rude to the Mrs.....:eek:

[jelloshotsrule]

let me just throw this out there....

what if padilla didn't do anything wrong? what if???

we cannot take EVERYTHING our gov't says as fact.

that said, i tend to think he did, but that is just cause i have a tendency to believe what the gov't says in general. but i'm saying, they could be wrong. it IS possible.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
let me just throw this out there....

what if padilla didn't do anything wrong? what if???

we cannot take EVERYTHING our gov't says as fact.

that said, i tend to think he did, but that is just cause i have a tendency to believe what the gov't says in general. but i'm saying, they could be wrong. it IS possible.

Hey Jello, having worked in this government, believe me, they got there man. There are probably others that they cannot find yet, but they got there man. They are not going to go and pick up people on no evidence that are innocent, and make them a scapegoat. Padilla is the truest form of a Traitor. He should be tried, and IF found guilty, shot before a firing squad.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Sorry for the rant everyone, but my country, and my President mean a lot to me. They both have MY RESPECT!


being a democrat and having voted for gore, i have buried the hatchet and i realize that we have to stand behind the president and the war we are in

at the same time, our nation and the military that supports them, are fighting for our right to openly declare our leaders treasonous

our flag represents our right to freedom of speech even to the level of burning the flag, burning crosses, or burning draft cards

there are weird beliefs in our country and even people who support osama bin laden, but our way of life in america gives us all the right to speak out openly without getting arrested

now if we didn't have those rights and our constitution today, we would have queen elizabeth on our coinage...our entire way of life was out of our reaction to a then corrupt monarchy in great britain under king george III who was mentally unstable

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hey Jello, having worked in this government, believe me, they got there man. There are probably others that they cannot find yet, but they got there man. They are not going to go and pick up people on no evidence that are innocent, and make them a scapegoat. Padilla is the truest form of a Traitor. He should be tried, and IF found guilty, shot before a firing squad.

but my point is, how do you know? i don't want to always hear "trust me"....

yeah, i am sure he's guilty pretty much. but that doesn't mean it's definite ALL the time.

and i never said they were scape goating him intentionally, just saying they could be wrong. there's always a chance something is off.

and AGAIN i would lean towards he's guilty, but in general, people still have some freedoms til proven guilty............. PROVEN guilty. by a court..

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


being a democrat and having voted for gore, i have buried the hatchet and i realize that we have to stand behind the president and the war we are in

at the same time, our nation and the military that supports them, are fighting for our right to openly declare our leaders treasonous

our flag represents our right to freedom of speech even to the level of burning the flag, burning crosses, or burning draft cards

there are weird beliefs in our country and even people who support osama bin laden, but our way of life in america gives us all the right to speak out openly without getting arrested

now if we didn't have those rights and our constitution today, we would have queen elizabeth on our coinage...our entire way of life was out of our reaction to a then corrupt monarchy in great britain under king george III who was mentally unstable

Jef, I agree with you that we do have the Freedom of speech, however we do not have the right to insite a riot. No rights are abolute. You have your rights up to the point that they infringe on anothers, or that you have passed the legal safe point of your rights. In other words, broken the law. Treason is against the law. Being a supporter of the enemy is a traitor. I don't know if the young lad has ever really thought about the consequences of, and the power of, his words. To make uneducated, misguided, treasonous statements do not make it easy for him to be successful. There is a freedom of speech. There is also treason. Especially during times of war. We both know the reality of the situation as it stands, and what we are up against. I don't mind when someone has a legit complaint, but a rant that is backed up with no fact. Well, that is unreal. I will defend to the death the right of my fellow countrymen to be able to say what they will. However, I will not stand by and watch treason go unaccounted for.

Just be glad that mcrain has not been around for a couple of days or this would be real interesting.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Hey Jello, having worked in this government, believe me, they got there man. There are probably others that they cannot find yet, but they got there man. They are not going to go and pick up people on no evidence that are innocent, and make them a scapegoat. Padilla is the truest form of a Traitor. He should be tried, and IF found guilty, shot before a firing squad.

woah, no way!

i also worked for the cia (for an operative) in 1985 researching soviet propoganda and worked for the department of defense in 1995 in human resources for the armed forces and the coast guard and i will tell anybody out there that we would then be playing into the hands of the terrorists

the death penalty is legal and meant for criminals but to put an islamic terrorist to death will make them a martyr

and besides money primarily gotten from oil sales and drug sales, with the former being the main source, the terrorists also need their martyrs to go on

why do you think israel, with the world's smartest miltary intelligence, have not killed yassir arafat?

we have to play this game intelligently to win and just like robert redford told brad pitt in the movie the spy game, "this is a game, but a very dangerous game"

we could eliminate most terrorists by unloading our entire nuclear arsenal, but that would be stupid in the long run

and assasinating terrorists who want nothing more than to be cannonized as martyrs would also be stupid

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


but my point is, how do you know? i don't want to always hear "trust me"....

yeah, i am sure he's guilty pretty much. but that doesn't mean it's definite ALL the time.

and i never said they were scape goating him intentionally, just saying they could be wrong. there's always a chance something is off.

and AGAIN i would lean towards he's guilty, but in general, people still have some freedoms til proven guilty............. PROVEN guilty. by a court..

People in civilian courts have the right to what you describe. In these cases they are going to be tried by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Some of the declassified information as to the mans guilt will be released, but the majority of the information will be kept classified to protect sources, and intel gatering techniques. I see where you are coming from, but believe me, you really don't want the general public getting all the information that the government knows. Believe me they are better being sheep that are protected by the wolves. A person is smart, people are dangerous.

[jelloshotsrule]

yeah, i don't want specifics.... after all, when the cia told someone that they had phone taps on osama a few years ago it got printed and al qaeda fixed the problem and no more taps.....

so i understand.

i just wish there was some way we could KNOW... as the public. there certainly ARE other things the gov't does which makes me not trust it across the board. ie, i don't always trust it, not i never trust it

word

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


woah, no way!

i also worked for the cia (for an operative) in 1985 researching soviet propoganda and worked for the department of defense in 1995 in human resources for the armed forces and the coast guard and i will tell anybody out there that we would then be playing into the hands of the terrorists

the death penalty is legal and meant for criminals but to put an islamic terrorist to death will make them a martyr

and besides money primarily gotten from oil sales and drug sales, with the former being the main source, the terrorists also need their martyrs to go on

why do you think israel, with the world's smartest miltary intelligence, have not killed yassir arafat?

we have to play this game intelligently to win and just like robert redford told brad pitt in the movie the spy game, "this is a game, but a very dangerous game"

we could eliminate most terrorists by unloading our entire nuclear arsenal, but that would be stupid in the long run

and assasinating terrorists who want nothing more than to be cannonized as martyrs would also be stupid

Jef, you miss my point. Padilla is a US citizen that conspired to detonate a nuclear device on American soil. He is a traitor, and should be put to death before a firing squad. That is the way is used to be done. That is how they should do it again. IF he is found guilty, he will, justly, be put to death. I did not know that you were an opp. Small world. I would have pegged you more for the Intel side. ;)

You are right though really. Emotion is something that cannot play into our decisions here. Bush has done a really good job trying to keep the emotion out of the decisions. Me personally, I am a hot head. I want all the Ba$tards dead, but all know that I am a radical right :D :eek:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Treason is against the law. Being a supporter of the enemy is a traitor.

if we don't have the right to support our enemy by beliefs thru or words by our freedom of speech, then we are in trouble and should just burn our constitution and tell england that they have us back as a colony again

but if one sends weapons to bin laden and harbors the terrorists, then that person has committed treason

in the bay area, it is not suggested to be an la dodgers fan...yikes...but the sf police would never have the right to lock up such and individual with such a heinous belief system:p

how is that for a stupid sports analogy...you have to live here to get the dodgers analogy

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
yeah, i don't want specifics.... after all, when the cia told someone that they had phone taps on osama a few years ago it got printed and al qaeda fixed the problem and no more taps.....

so i understand.

i just wish there was some way we could KNOW... as the public. there certainly ARE other things the gov't does which makes me not trust it across the board. ie, i don't always trust it, not i never trust it

word

Believe it or not, trust in government has been steady since the late 70's. It was at a high in the mid 80's and is fluxuating. It is not an absolute like it used to be. There is a way you can know. Go sign up for the CIA. he.he. Field agent Jello. I like the sound of that. he.he.

Seriously, I understand. Our government is not perfect, none is, but I choose it over all others on this planet. They make mistakes as all humans do, but we are truely blessed to live where we live and have the freedoms that we have. All in all, I would say that we are by far the luckiest folks on the planet.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


if we don't have the right to support our enemy by beliefs thru or words by our freedom of speech, then we are in trouble and should just burn our constitution and tell england that they have us back as a colony again

but if one sends weapons to bin laden and harbors the terrorists, then that person has committed treason

in the bay area, it is not suggested to be an la dodgers fan...yikes...but the sf police would never have the right to lock up such and individual with such a heinous belief system:p

how is that for a stupid sports analogy...you have to live here to get the dodgers analogy

Jef, I am sorry, that was my fault. I meant that if he was conspiring with Osamas band of merry men, then that would be treason. To harbor, support, commit act of terror or conspire with them, it is all the same. It is treason. For example. Lets say that Joe, in Littletown takes pictures of the nuclear power plant there, and mails them to Osama, and then Osama has his slack jaws blow the thing up. Joe is a traitor. Try him, convict him, and sentence him to death. That is all I am saying. We are on the same page, but it is my fault that I did not communicate it better..

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Jef, you miss my point. Padilla is a US citizen that conspired to detonate a nuclear device on American soil. He is a traitor, and should be put to death before a firing squad. That is the way is used to be done. That is how they should do it again. IF he is found guilty, he will, justly, be put to death. I did not know that you were an opp. Small world. I would have pegged you more for the Intel side. ;)

You are right though really. Emotion is something that cannot play into our decisions here. Bush has done a really good job trying to keep the emotion out of the decisions. Me personally, I am a hot head. I want all the Ba$tards dead, but all know that I am a radical right :D :eek:

i wasn't an op, but just a student who worked for one...he he

in the old days with a traditional enemy, we would kill a traitor with a firing squad

but al qaeda is not a traditional enemy and we cannot fight an ememy like this the way that patton or macarthur fought their enemies

this is not a conventional war or even a nuclear war

this is a spy war and has to be fought quietly

we want to win and if we execute any muslin terrorist, we will be paid back a hundred fold...we will be playing into their hands if we kill them thru assasination

now sending in delta force with the cia to flush them out in their back yard and training camps is just fine with me...and if we need to use force, then so be it

but with the captured spies, they are worth more to us alive so we can gather intel

i am on the intelligence community side just like you

when clinton was president, he had a whole bunch of left leaning cia and fbi people to choose from just like bush has his gop leaning intelligence community people

thank god that we have police, cia, fbi, and military people who vote both ways in america

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Jef, I am sorry, that was my fault. I meant that if he was conspiring with Osamas band of merry men, then that would be treason. To harbor, support, commit act of terror or conspire with them, it is all the same. It is treason. For example. Lets say that Joe, in Littletown takes pictures of the nuclear power plant there, and mails them to Osama, and then Osama has his slack jaws blow the thing up. Joe is a traitor. Try him, convict him, and sentence him to death. That is all I am saying. We are on the same page, but it is my fault that I did not communicate it better..

bin laden is scary the way he can get people to work for him or have nuts think they are on his side

so far, we have three american al qaeda, a british shoe bomber, and an ameican teen who flew an airplane into a building who felt sorry for bin laden

[drastik]

I think that spies are definitely worthmore alive than dead. Of course, I think evrybody is. Put them to hard labor or use them for testing of somesort, but don't kill people, I say.

As for Bush, blah, who cares, its fairly obvious that he isn't in charge anyway. The man has one thing going for him above all else, he relizes he isn't really prepared for the job. To that end, he has surrounded himself with able, intelligent people. Unfortunatley, some of those people :(Cheny: Head of oil company, only oil company given permission to import oil from Iraq during the "embargo"; Ashcroft: its nobody's business what I'm doing, screw anyone who thinks they have rights, and cover up those naked breasts n the hall of justice, I don't care what ist costs {170,000$}), are crazy.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by drastik
I think that spies are definitely worthmore alive than dead. Of course, I think evrybody is. Put them to hard labor or use them for testing of somesort, but don't kill people, I say.

As for Bush, blah, who cares, its fairly obvious that he isn't in charge anyway. The man has one thing going for him above all else, he relizes he isn't really prepared for the job. To that end, he has surrounded himself with able, intelligent people. Unfortunatley, some of those people :(Cheny: Head of oil company, only oil company given permission to import oil from Iraq during the "embargo"; Ashcroft: its nobody's business what I'm doing, screw anyone who thinks they have rights, and cover up those naked breasts n the hall of justice, I don't care what ist costs {170,000$}), are crazy.

God, I love how uniformed people shoot there mouths off without knowing ***** from Shynolla. Have you ever met him? Know anyone that has? Have you ever been in a briefing with the man? Have you ever had dinner with him? Oh, let me get this straight you let the image of him that the media sets form your opinion. Wow, how does it feel to be a clone? Man, believe me, he is in charge, he does know what is going on, and has done an amazing job. Those are fact. Look at it more closely, and you will see the truth.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by drastik
To that end, he has surrounded himself with able, intelligent people. Unfortunatley, some of those people :(Cheny: Head of oil company, only oil company given permission to import oil from Iraq during the "embargo"; Ashcroft: its nobody's business what I'm doing, screw anyone who thinks they have rights, and cover up those naked breasts n the hall of justice, I don't care what ist costs {170,000$}), are crazy.

cheney - better for the job as president than bush or gore since cheney has experience with terrorists...hussein

ashcroft - a total nut who does not believe in dancing and gives christians like me a bad name

to me, i can picture ashcroft burning the constituion and making us a british colony

coldoleeza rice - very intelligent but comes across as a bad speaker

powell - a great mind and everybody's favorite choice in the gop for president

rumsfeld - seems to be ok so far

mineta - also seems good so far

ridge - i say back him up with more money

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


God, I love how uniformed people shoot there mouths off without knowing ***** from Shynolla. Have you ever met him? Know anyone that has? Have you ever been in a briefing with the man? Have you ever had dinner with him? Oh, let me get this straight you let the image of him that the media sets form your opinion. Wow, how does it feel to be a clone? Man, believe me, he is in charge, he does know what is going on, and has done an amazing job. Those are fact. Look at it more closely, and you will see the truth.

i get the distinct feeling (a guess though) that bush sr and cheney are really in charge (in reality)

but then again, i am actually happy with that since bush sr and cheney know middle east politics better than anybody

bush jr is like a weaker clone of bush sr...both went to andover, both went to yale, both were in the skull and bones, both were pilots, and both were governors of texas...and now both are president bushes

i think, so far, bush sr was a better president...but i will have to wait until 2004 to answer that fairly

btw...i think bush sr was also better than reagan

but ford and nixon were the best gop presidents in modern times

[drastik]

Hold on now, I'm not saying he hasn't done a good job, I happen to think that he's done very good job. All I'm syaing is that he knows his limitations, and he acts accordingly. He is advised by intelligent people who share his politics and agenda. The post came off badly because I have a great deal of dislike for Cheney and Ashcroft. Their views are way to right for me. Bush, on the other hand is truly more of a centerist, except on some decidely religious issues.

I am also a bit peeved because the idea of a shaow government bothers me, as does continual limiting of individual liberty. I think we should shoot traitors, yes. But the kind of throat jumping reaction your pouring on B2TM, is just ridiculous. The media has in ways crafted my view of Bush, but so what. He's a public person, in an extremely public position. He spent millions and milions of dollars putting his views across to voters. Bias in the media is very real thing, I'll admit, but people are still capable of draawing their own conclusions. You need to take a step back and remember that just because people disagree with you, they aren't stupid and missinformed.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by drastik
Hold on now, I'm not saying he hasn't done a good job, I happen to think that he's done very good job. All I'm syaing is that he knows his limitations, and he acts accordingly. He is advised by intelligent people who share his politics and agenda. The post came off badly because I have a great deal of dislike for Cheney and Ashcroft. Their views are way to right for me. Bush, on the other hand is truly more of a centerist, except on some decidely religious issues.

I am also a bit peeved because the idea of a shaow government bothers me, as does continual limiting of individual liberty. I think we should shoot traitors, yes. But the kind of throat jumping reaction your pouring on B2TM, is just ridiculous. The media has in ways crafted my view of Bush, but so what. He's a public person, in an extremely public position. He spent millions and milions of dollars putting his views across to voters. Bias in the media is very real thing, I'll admit, but people are still capable of draawing their own conclusions. You need to take a step back and remember that just because people disagree with you, they aren't stupid and missinformed.

HA! See, now that is a well thought out and intelligent post! I agree with what you are saying except I like Ashcroft and Cheney. At least Achcroft knows how to loose :D Seriously, your first post came off wrong. This one is better. There is a big difference between saying he doesn't know what is going on, and such and saying that he lets his people do there job. He does have the same the buck stops here mentality that Truman and Regan had. He is a wonderful President, and I thank God that we have him.

[mischief]

WTF is your problem with British-Commonwealth nations?

Most of the ones that survived long enough to stabilize have more advanced, progressive core-documents than this nation. The US Constitution is a good PROTOTYPE but other nations have developped better overall systems for being good to their citizens.

Many nations have Queen Elisabeth on their currency out of respect and heritage, NOT Fealty.

Does this nation have Freedom of Thought directly garanteed? How about Health Care or Privacy? Freedom of Data as an advanced version of the 2nd amendment? What about Freedom of Conscience?

Look it up before you assume us commonwealthers are all backward bootlickers.

http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/canada.html

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mischief
WTF is your problem with British-Commonwealth nations?

Most of the ones that survived long enough to stabilize have more advanced, progressive core-documents than this nation. The US Constitution is a good PROTOTYPE but other nations have developped better overall systems for being good to their citizens.

Many nations have Queen Elisabeth on their currency out of respect and heritage, NOT Fealty.

Does this nation have Freedom of Thought directly garanteed? How about Health Care or Privacy? Freedom of Data as an advanced version of the 2nd amendment? What about Freedom of Conscience?

Look it up before you assume us commonwealthers are all backward bootlickers.

http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/canada.html

Mischief, we are not assaulting our wonderful allies, but yet we are stating the obvious. England in the 1600's and 1700's wasn't exactly good to their citizens. As for your questions. We are not a socialism, so no there is no health care. But yes we have free thought directly guaranteed, and all other freedoms that we need. Settle down, go find a newbie and smack some pie in there face. No one was dissin on the Brits of today, but the Brits of yesteryear.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mischief
WTF is your problem with British-Commonwealth nations?

Most of the ones that survived long enough to stabilize have more advanced, progressive core-documents than this nation. The US Constitution is a good PROTOTYPE but other nations have developped better overall systems for being good to their citizens.

Many nations have Queen Elisabeth on their currency out of respect and heritage, NOT Fealty.

Does this nation have Freedom of Thought directly garanteed? How about Health Care or Privacy? Freedom of Data as an advanced version of the 2nd amendment? What about Freedom of Conscience?

Look it up before you assume us commonwealthers are all backward bootlickers.

http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/canada.html

i was referring to england being corrupt under king george III in the 1700s...we barely won the revolutionary war and england sacked our capital decades later but somehow we survived

but fast forward to today...yes, i agree that canada, australia, and new zealand are more progressive than the united states...and maybe others, too

i am just irked at how the ultra right wing in america want to abolish everything our constitution stands for and go back to a king george III style monarchy (can you say dictatorship)

but england and the commonwealth nations are ok in my book today

and the queen is well liked over here in america

[Backtothemac]

Here is an example of political correctness run amuck

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56505,00.html

[mischief]

I just needed to do that so the Lurkers and newbies don't get the wrong idea. I figured you both knew better but I figured it'd be wise to make sure you realize how you sound when you get all excited about this stuff.

No worries, I just wanted credit where credit is due in terms of evolution of Nation building.;)

[mischief]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is an example of political corruptness run amuck

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56505,00.html

Being as the article you liked is a Theatre company. Unless there's a Minister involved I missed??;)

[Backtothemac]

Yep, correctness, my bad. he.he.:D

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am just irked at how the ultra right wing in america want to abolish everything our constitution stands for and go back to a king george III style monarchy (can you say dictatorship)

That's one of the things that seemed odd to me about the 2000 elections. No new faces, only the Bush dynasty and a lackey of the Clinton dynasty. As a result I disliked both of them. With 2 Bush presidents and a Clinton president and senator, do we really need another Kennedy family running around?

[Backtothemac]

Jef, I don't think the ultra right wants to do away with things any more than the ultra left does. The fact is that it is good people like ourselves in the middle that really control things. We, demographically are the most powerful group of voters in history. That is a fact.

As far as 2 bush's. I am happier than a clam that we have W. His daddy was great, but let the democrats in Congress push him around to much.

[jefhatfield]

the ultra left is just as against our constitution as the ultra right...this is true...the ultra left want to be communists and i consider them dangerous...look at history...the soviets, red china, pol pot, etc

the center is a large group which includes colin powell, ronald reagan, george bush, bill clinton, al gore, and jesse jackson

i would consider the religious right as a far right group who want to go against the constitution and mix church and state and to me, that is just as dangerous as the communists who want a godless society...one of the main reasons we broke from the monarchy of england was because that system had the royal family...at the time in the 1700s...with too much power in running the church...and to the colonies, we found that a conflict of interest and ripe for corruption...thus we came up with separation of church and state...our most precious right in america and along with the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, the reason why more than a million americans died on the battlefield

the christian right want to take that away...i am a christian and i can't believe what i am seeing...my father served the us army in world war II and helped abolish tyranny and the christian right wants to bring tyranny back with a self styled, money worshipping, white supremist, anti democratic regime

i consider following chirst being a christian, not membership in any political party or part of a past or current inquisition which is just as likely to jail those who believe the world is round or older than five thousand years old

my ancestors, the asians in china, had a written history and were charting the stars when most of europe were living in caves so that last thing i need is someone from the christian right telling me that china was not around then or that carbon dating is inaccurate:rolleyes:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
that last thing i need is someone from the christian right telling me that china was not around then or that carbon dating is inaccurate:rolleyes:

i would also be against a christian left who had the thinking that memebership to the left was necessary duty

with christianity, it is john 3:16...not the dems or the gop...that is a separate issue called american politics

and the fact that they (church and state) are separate is why we have an america

the minute we lose that, then they might as well burn the constitution and make an announcement to the world that king george the III was right

if we lose our very liberty at the hands of the ultra right or ultra left, then i am getting out of here...i don't want a david duke or fidel castro running my life

[sjs]

I, like you, am a Christian. I am also on the "right", since that normally means "conservative".

So perhaps that makes me a part of your "Christian right" that you are so disturbed at. But if you and I met, I'd bet we would agree on nearly everything (esp John 3:16) and where we disagreed, it would probably be no threat to the survival of America!

The David Duke of KKK fame was no representative of the Christian right any more than Fidel Castro represents democrats or liberals, or at least let's say 99.999% of them.

I think partly you may be buying into the stereotype the press portrays of Christians and conservatives. But when they find one wacko ultra-liberal, does the media try to portray all democrats or liberals that way? No. It doesn't even make the news.

What I am saying is that being a Christian and a conservative, well, just look past the stereotypes of the media and look at ordinary moms and dads, workers and small business owners, little league coaches and community volunteers. That where you'll find us, and we share nearly all the values you probably hold dear, too.

PS Jeff: I still think I may be older than you (I'm 46). Wife and 4 great kids; mortgage, three cars, small business owner...kind of like the "old man" of MR?

[Backtothemac]

The one thing that makes me so sad is that no one ever quotes John 3:17.

'For God did not send his son unto the world so that the world would be condemed by him, but that it might be saved through him'

that is paraphrasing, but close to it. Jef, Krosfyter you may know. Anyway. I have never met a Christian that thinks that everyone else is going to hell. I have met some Church going people that think that. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, knowing, understanding, and living by the word is what makes you a Chrisitan.

[krossfyter]

exactly B2THM!

doing good or going to church or calling yourself a christian does not a christian make!

accepting what Christ has done for you and believing him as Lord and saviour makes one a Christian. After all "Christian" simply means "Christ in".... Christ in you heart.. ec. etc.



booyah!

[sjs]

And btw, I'm pretty proud of "bushie boy". Interestingly, I don't think he'd be bothered by that nickname! He gives everyone else a nickname...he might just get a laugh out of that.

I'm always amused when someone calls Bush an "idiot". Lets see: graduate of Yale, MBA from Harvard, two term governor and now president. That beats my educational credentials, as well as career advancement.

Oh well, he's a good man and he deserves our prayers. He's made me proud of the presidency again.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by sjs
He's made me proud of the presidency again.



exactly! it was the other way with bill.

[bonehead]

The one thing that makes me so sad is that no one ever quotes John 3:17.

'For God did not send his son unto the world so that the world would be condemed by him, but that it might be saved through him'

that is paraphrasing, but close to it. Jef, Krosfyter you may know. Anyway. I have never met a Christian that thinks that everyone else is going to hell. I have met some Church going people that think that. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, knowing, understanding, and living by the word is what makes you a Chrisitan.

B2tM: Earlier you advocated death by firing squad for terrorists. The Bible says God said "Thou shalt not kill". If being a Christian means "knowing, understanding and living by the word", how can you support killing someone, regardless of the atrocities committed by them, if that contradicts a direct commandment from God?

While formulating your response remember I'm not questioning your belief in Christianity. It just seemed to me that killing a traitor is still killing and that is in conflict with God's word. Also realize that I am not suggesting that someone convicted of treason should be set free. Life imprisonment seems pretty harsh to me.

[krossfyter]

there are times when killing is permited. like in times of war. so as long as they are not innocent civilians. if they are terrorists....they are not innocent...thats for sure.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by bonehead


B2tM: Earlier you advocated death by firing squad for terrorists. The Bible says God said "Thou shalt not kill". If being a Christian means "knowing, understanding and living by the word", how can you support killing someone, regardless of the atrocities committed by them, if that contradicts a direct commandment from God?

While formulating your response remember I'm not questioning your belief in Christianity. It just seemed to me that killing a traitor is still killing and that is in conflict with God's word. Also realize that I am not suggesting that someone convicted of treason should be set free. Life imprisonment seems pretty harsh to me.

The Bible also says an 'eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. No offense taken. The Bible also says to protect your flock. It is in our right to protect ourselves from those that would kill. To kill in self defense is allowed.

[bonehead]

An eye for an eye is one thing but killing is another. I agree that if someone is trying to harm me, I may harm them in the process of defending myself. If someone is trying to kill you (meaning at that moment trying, not talking about it or plotting it) and you kill
them, you could rightfully claim self defense. In the case of the captured terrorist there is a choice. You have them in custody so they are not able to go out and build bombs. In essence you have effectively defended yourself against that particular terrorist. If self defense has thus been achieved, executing them is not killing in self defense.

The Bible does say to protect your flock but it also says "Thou shalt not kill". It is possible to protect without killing.

I am also interested in what you and anyone else think about the following: Does any part of the Bible trump any other?
The Bible says "an eye for an eye" but it also says "thou shalt not kill". Does one claim primacy over the other?

Thanks for maintaining a reasoned discussion.

[sturm375]

To all things ask: What Would Jesus Do? [WWJD].

Jesus clerified what it is to be on the "Path". I am paraphrasing here:

Love God before all other gods
-That is the Capitilized God, and the lower case gods. God as in the one true power, and gods as in money, power, fame.

Do unto others as you'd have done to you.

There it is. These two rules encompass all that is to be "Christian"

At least that is what I was taught. Old testement is just that, old testement. Jesus is the new. Any "Christian" that supports the death peanalty, and then quotes the Old testement, is not a Christian, IMHO

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by sturm375
To all things ask: What Would Jesus Do? [WWJD].

Jesus clerified what it is to be on the "Path". I am paraphrasing here:

Love God before all other gods
-That is the Capitilized God, and the lower case gods. God as in the one true power, and gods as in money, power, fame.

Do unto others as you'd have done to you.

There it is. These two rules encompass all that is to be "Christian"

At least that is what I was taught. Old testement is just that, old testement. Jesus is the new. Any "Christian" that supports the death peanalty, and then quotes the Old testement, is not a Christian, IMHO

Um, no. Go talk to a man of the cloth. They will explain it to you. There is a lot more to being Christan than that.

[SoarEyes]

What if you don’t believe in the novel called ”bible”
let’s separate religion and politics.

I personally feel (I know you don’t give a ffff backtothemac) that death penalties are the easy way out. It’s way harder to work on integrating/helping those that are left out. When you grow in an environment where your totally ”the dude” if you are making money with illegal activity. then that’s all you know and it’s a heck of alot different from bushieboys background. So sure shrimpface won’t be able to emphatize.

[krossfyter]

well thats a good put soareyes. you got me thinking on this one.


:)

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Um, no. Go talk to a man of the cloth. They will explain it to you. There is a lot more to being Christan than that.

I have. And yes I am being very simplistic, however if you truely know Jesus, he will not steer you wrong. There is no way I will ever believe Jesus would support the death peanelty.

Boy, this thread has gone pretty far off topic:confused:

[jefhatfield]

certainly things have gone off topic but i can see relavance in something everyone is saying and it makes for a very dynamic thread

you all know where i stand with separation of church and state with the goal of keeping jesus' teachings and words uncorrupted by the banterings of american democrats vs. american republicans:p

john 3:16 is meant for those who belong to all political affiliations

you can be a christian who gets more from the old testament, the new testament, the dems and their policies, or the gop and their policies...but remember to keep your spiritual life in the directions of jesus' teachings if you are a christian and don't let any member of the house or senate or anywhere else tell you that what they are saying supercedes the word of god

our forefathers were largly a christian group of men and they saw how bowing down to politics...ie) monarchy over the church...could mess things up royaly (excuse the pun...he he)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by sjs


I think partly you may be buying into the stereotype the press portrays of Christians and conservatives. But when they find one wacko ultra-liberal, does the media try to portray all democrats or liberals that way? No. It doesn't even make the news.


the so called "liberal" media goes after liberals if they think they have a story...during the vietnam war, there were some extremest left wing types that were newsworthy as well as some communists

gary condit is a dem and the press have gone after him

many good christians are republicans as well as democrats but there is this frightening sub group of right wing, power hungry, money-sluts that want to cater to the upper 1 percent (note the absence of minorities in ultra christian right like david duke and the christian identity movement)

in jesus' time, those conservative religionists were called saducees and pharisees and jesus did not have anything good to say about them

i just have a conflict in following jesus, playing on all white golf courses, and worshipping a man like buchannan who thinks the holocost was a historical lie

btw...adolph hitler thought he was doing the work of christ

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by sjs


I'm always amused when someone calls Bush an "idiot". Lets see: graduate of Yale, MBA from Harvard, two term governor and now president. That beats my educational credentials, as well as career advancement.


bush could be congratulated for his ivy league credentials as some do

or bush could be seen as a legacy slide in into yale university like others like to think

i believe it may be a little bit of both but i certainly think that being a "brain" is not what we look for in a president

of recent vintage, newt gingrich is probably the smartest politician we have had, but i don't agree with him on much

i rather like the compartively uneducated jesse ventura's ideas better

hey, i am a democrat and he beat my party too over in minnesota, but it just goes to show you don't have to have an mba or phd to run things

leadership is a different issue

right now, i give bush an A in foreign policy, but we are entering the second worst downturn in american history since 1900...we have already surpassed the former second worst downturn of 23 months in the 73-74 period and if bush were able to get a grade on the economy, he might be lucky to get a C

but right now, i am still more concerned about catching bin laden as al gore recently stated...now i don't know if al wants bin laden more or if he was playing partisan politics

either way, we need to get bin laden and smash his network asap

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SoarEyes
What if you don’t believe in the novel called ”bible”
let’s separate religion and politics.

I personally feel (I know you don’t give a ffff backtothemac) that death penalties are the easy way out. It’s way harder to work on integrating/helping those that are left out. When you grow in an environment where your totally ”the dude” if you are making money with illegal activity. then that’s all you know and it’s a heck of alot different from bushieboys background. So sure shrimpface won’t be able to emphatize.

Well, sorry you feel that way. I personally support it, and I have a brother that is on death row. Well, he was until the Supreme Court overturned his and 150 other imates convictions last week. He will either get a new trial, or life now. I still support it though when guilt is clearly certain. IE: DNA, eyewitnesses, etc. I used to be against it, but not any longer. Now that I have a family, I am for it. If someone ever parted a hair on my wife or daughter, that would be it. There would be no need for the courts. I would handle that myself. Is that Christian? No. Just a burden that I would bear.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Well, sorry you feel that way. I personally support it, and I have a brother that is on death row. Well, he was until the Supreme Court overturned his and 150 other imates convictions last week. He will either get a new trial, or life now. I still support it though when guilt is clearly certain. IE: DNA, eyewitnesses, etc. I used to be against it, but not any longer. Now that I have a family, I am for it. If someone ever parted a hair on my wife or daughter, that would be it. There would be no need for the courts. I would handle that myself. Is that Christian? No. Just a burden that I would bear.

b2tm,

remind me not to take up hairdressing for your wife...:p

[krossfyter]

b2tm is a barber?!!:D

[Backtothemac]

Ha! jef, and Krosfyter, you just made my hectic day!:D

[Promostyle]

I HATE BUSH (yes there are two meanings)

[shadowfax0]

For the record, I hate these conversations, nothing gets done, and it just gets everyone mad. Anyhow, with that said I must also say that I am not without opinion. First off (I SO know this is going to be held against me in any replies to this message) but I am not an American citizen, I am Canadian, and very proud of that fact. I just think the bombing of an entire country in order to punish a few individuals is just a poor excuse and was not well thought out. Now, that may seem to be a fine opinion to someone who has not observered what was going on. (I have a website with alot of, *interesting* facts on it, I'll post it later when I find the site, I also recommend radiofreenation.com) They bombed that country for oil, and I am convinced, 2 months before Cheney met with the Taliban in order to discuss the production of an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, the Taliban refused (this was for the oil company Haliburten, which is a Canadian comapny I believe, or has oil holdings there or something) and I just find it EXTREMELY CONVENIENT. I do not think Bush is that bad of a person, although he has been arrested 5 times, I don't know anyone personally who's been arrested that many times. I don't like the big three, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. To me, they are taking away too many personal freedoms, and pulling the wool over alot of people's eyes. UNder them, if I get arrested, say for evena minor offense (say, drunk driving like your fearless leader) then I will be held under military tribunal, wihtout a lawyer, and can be held 'indefinitely' without explanation.

Coming from where I used to live to here has been an adjustment purely for this reason, there is no public outcry in this country, or at least, no one listens. In Canada, if they built a house in the wrong place, people heard about it, and they didn't just hear about, things got done. To me, that's the biggest thing I've noticed here, next to the pushy New Yorkers :D Now, that last one, about the NYers, is not that true, I'm just trying to lighten the mood of this discussion a little bit. God, why do I write these things? I'm just prolonging the discussion that isn't going anywhere :rolleyes:

BTW everybody, WITHOUT looking on the internet, who was the first Prime Minister of Canada? Everyone knows the first President (even the majority of Canadian school children) So my bet is that not a single one of you knows the answer right now as you are reading this. But by all means, go look it up :)

[SoarEyes]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Well, sorry you feel that way. I personally support it, and I have a brother that is on death row. Well, he was until the Supreme Court overturned his and 150 other imates convictions last week. He will either get a new trial, or life now.

Are you bull****ting us? :eek:
Wasn’t that the trial about mental abilities? I think that was a Supreme ruling. :p


Is this thing on? This thing smell awfull?
-DeLaSoul-