Tricky Dick ... the rumors were true

[SoonerBounce13]

Attending church regularly and then stoping does suggest you are fake.

Blaming the Crusades entirely on Christians is the most absurd and biased description of history possible. The Muslims conquered the Christians and were expanding their lands. The crusades were started in response. Both sides did plenty wrong. One thing we know with certainty is that Muhamad and his followers have always believed they have a right to use force to spread their religion. According to Muslims Muhammad was simply reclaiming Mecca in his military campaign but you really can't reclaim something in the name of a brand new religion.

Blaming slavery on Christians is also an odd depiction of history that ignores the absolute fact that a huge percentage of slaves were captured in interior Africa by Muslims that forced conversion or slavery. So if Obama wants to discuss these historical issues in light of terrorism then let's discuss them accurately.

One can be against government spending and for private assistance to the needy.

Agreed. The crusades is one of the most misreported and misunderstood historical event in history

 

[DenverSooner]

It is blatantly lied about. The Holly Lands were controlled by Christians for centuries. Islam didn't even exist. Muslims took it by force.

The stuff about slavery is also true.

 

[coolm]

Attending church regularly and then stoping does suggest you are fake.

No it doesn't. It suggests someone who doesn't have time for it. He's probably the busiest man in the world how dare someone question what he does with his time! ridiculous. Going to church is worthless anyway.

One can be against government spending and for private assistance to the needy.

That's about as much of a response as "I dont know anything about Kansas". Not surprising though. Again you're just furthering the whole selfish, clueless, bourgeois modern republican demeanor.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

No it doesn't. It suggests someone who doesn't have time for it. He's probably the busiest man in the world how dare someone question what he does with his time! ridiculous. Going to church is worthless anyway.



.

IF you are a Christian, and as you claim a very good Christian, you would make time for God no matter how busy you are.

Going to church may be worthless to you but I thought I say where you said you didn't believe in God?

Anyways, in case you do believe, why is it that the 12 disciples of Christ set up churches in various towns if Church is worthless?

One of the most important aspects of "church" is receiving the lord. Anybody that doubts this should reread the Bread of Life discourse in John chapter 6

 

[DenverSooner]

No it doesn't. It suggests someone who doesn't have time for it. He's probably the busiest man in the world how dare someone question what he does with his time! ridiculous. Going to church is worthless anyway.




That's about as much of a response as "I dont know anything about Kansas". Not surprising though. Again you're just furthering the whole selfish, clueless, bourgeois modern republican demeanor.

Is that how you felt about George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or is this only how you feel about democrats.

Part of being President is being questioned on all kinds of things.

I never even said if I am for or against food stamps. However, I will tell you I believe virtually all aspects of government are filled with waste and some fraud.

You will never convince me that every single agency cannot cut a few percent from its budget and provide more benefit to the people at the same time by simply be more efficient.

 

[coolm]

yes, I believe that for every President. It's the hardest job in the world and anyone who subjects themselves to it is owed at least a modicum of respect just for that alone. Believe it or not I still saluted George Bush and called him "Sir" and "Mr President" when he pinned a Navy Achievement Medal on me and later asked me about my family during dinner. I treated him with respect ... unlike how the right treats our current President.

I certainly agree that most government agencies are horribly inefficient. And to that end I didnt oppose the cuts last session that weren't directly affecting food going to legitimate recipients. I DO oppose cuts that are just X% as we are seeing proposed now because they lead directly to loss of funds to hungry children and elderly.

 

[sheepdogs1]

You DON'T receive the same assistance from religious or charitable organizations ... and the religious and charitable organizations aren't held to the same standard and may discriminate or provide nothing at all as they wish.

geez ... what rock do you people live under?

So you have no problems with your tax money going to infrastructure such as roads and parks and bridges and libraries and highways and ports etc... . But if it goes to helping hungry people in need you get annoyed? WHY exactly is that? The fraud rate for social programs is MUCH lower (just over 1%) than for these other things that you support ... and the money is a LOCAL infusion right back into the economy vice a contract that might go to an overseas corp.

Quit buying the urban legend crap about Reagan's "welfare mom" and just accept the fact that the fraud rate is very low and, even with some fraud, there are millions upon millions upon millions of starving children who have been fed that no one ever seems to talk about.

Make people work if they're receiving food stamps? Sure, the ones who can .. I am all for it. Make them buy actual food? I'm all for that too. What I am NOT for is cutting and lessening the allotment while, on the flip side, funding tax breaks for rich a-holes or giving the Pentagon more money for tank programs than they ask for just so said tanks can sit in a field after production because the military can neither use nor staff for them (or further fund the idiotic F-35).

I did not stipulate in any manner of speaking that I was discontent with knowing my tax dollars are being used to provide food stamps for one. Secondly, all I was alluding to is that there are always alternatives to accomplishing the same feat. Thirdly, you purposely try to see the worst in what others are saying so you can once again jump down their throats and repetitively initiate your vitriolic arguments. And finally, you are the epitome of an internet sissy as in the full fledged variety.

 

[DenverSooner]

I DO oppose cuts that are just X% as we are seeing proposed now because they lead directly to loss of funds to hungry children and elderly.

I actually tend to support X% cuts because our politicians cannot agree on what to cut.

I am much more sympathetic to hungry children than hungry elderly. I don't want elderly to be hungry but many of them made personal decisions that led to their situation. You cannot say that about children. They have had no opportunity to provide for themselves.

I am a strong believer in personal freedom and personal accountability. When I screw up, nobody bails me out. I have to figure it out.

 

[DenverSooner]

That's about as much of a response as "I dont know anything about Kansas". Not surprising though. Again you're just furthering the whole selfish, clueless, bourgeois modern republican demeanor.

You suffer from preconceived conclusions that your way is the only right way. We were never supposed to have all this nonsense that currently exists. A strong argument may be made that much of it is unconstitutional.

For example, the restrictions on drugs are arguably unconstitutional. When the federal government wanted prohibition they believed they had to amend the Constitution. If it takes a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol, why doesn't it take a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit marijuana and other drugs? If it neatly falls into the commerce clause, why didn't prohibition? I would argue regulating commerce and banning commerce are not the same thing.

 

[coolm]

you can call me a "sissy" all you want.

just know that I fight for these things and make these same arguments in real life. I bother the politicans daily ... I picket ... I protest .... I represent a ton of people for nothing or next to nothing. I actually live, act on, and support my beliefs.

do you do the same? really?

 

[sheepdogs1]

you can call me a "sissy" all you want.

just know that I fight for these things and make these same arguments in real life. I bother the politicans daily ... I picket ... I protest .... I represent a ton of people for nothing or next to nothing. I actually live, act on, and support my beliefs.

do you do the same? really?

I think we've hooked horns enough on this site, as well as others, for you to realize all that you need to know.

 

[coolm]

You suffer from preconceived conclusions that your way is the only right way.

you're right. I do.

 

[DenverSooner]

That is what your political opponents do too. The problem is no one is willing to compromise and we become more and more unhappy with our political opponents. Perhaps if we could all take a deep breath and find some middle ground we just might realize that is actually better than either the left or the right.