Who

Nicholson, GA

#16320 Jun 23, 2013
No respect for Obama.

"In a major embarrassment for President Barack Obama, an aircraft thought to have carried Snowden landed in Moscow on Sunday, and the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said he was "bound for the Republic of Ecuador via a safe route for the purposes of asylum."

Earlier, Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, visiting Vietnam, tweeted: "The Government of Ecuador has received an asylum request from Edward J.#Snowden."

It was a blow to Obama's foreign policy goals of resetting ties with Russia and building a partnership with China. The leaders of both countries were willing to snub the American president in a month when each had held talks with Obama.

The United States continued efforts to prevent Snowden from gaining asylum. It warned Western Hemisphere nations that Snowden "should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel, other than is necessary to return him to the United States," a State Department official said."
jeb stuart

Cordele, GA

#16321 Jun 23, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I think the kind of state that is in place and is desired is an Aristocratic state, not a socialist state.
brilliant, you know that aristocratic is almost synonymous with fascist.

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Dallas, GA

#16322 Jun 23, 2013
GOP Senators Should Block Immigration Monday, Let Us and Them Read the Bill.

Mike Kelly, R-Penn. "I don't understand the rush. We saw what happened in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Any time you rush anything through that big - this was up to 1,100 pages - I doubt that anybody's really read it and been able to really get through...every piece of it."

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Dallas, GA

#16323 Jun 23, 2013
Schumer explained, regarding the immigration bill "even if it means abandoning the Hastert rule. He (Boehner) will have no choice as the pressure mounts over the summer."

Shows you what an idiot Schumer is, they all have a choice, do something stupid, do something smart, or do nothing at all, except enforce ALL the immigration laws we already have. What a great idea, why hasn't anyone thought of that yet?
jeb stuart

Cordele, GA

#16324 Jun 23, 2013
General Robert E Lee wrote:
GOP Senators Should Block Immigration Monday, Let Us and Them Read the Bill.
Mike Kelly, R-Penn. "I don't understand the rush. We saw what happened in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Any time you rush anything through that big - this was up to 1,100 pages - I doubt that anybody's really read it and been able to really get through...every piece of it."
GOP= Greedy Old Party !!!!

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16325 Jun 23, 2013
Democrats = greedy Old Party!!!
They are all politicians.
The only thing that matters to them is getting reelected and getting rich.
They are part of the one party disguised as a two party system.
The other party is the Republican Party, which is also part of the one party disguised as a two party system.
Republicans+ Democrats = The one party that is disguised as a two party system.
You will come to this same conclusion sooner or later.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16326 Jun 23, 2013
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty good reason to start looking at "non conforming" candidates.
You are correct. They want to say that they will give us border security if we allow 30 million people to get away with breaking the laws of this country.
We should have already had good border security years ago. Border security has nothing to do with the illegal aliens that wish to be given amnesty. The only thing in common is that they wouldn't be here in the first place if we had border security. We would not be having this conversation. True?

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16327 Jun 23, 2013
I think this article shows clearly where the President and his administration stands on this immigration bill. They want it really bad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics...
Informed Opinion

United States

#16328 Jun 23, 2013
General Robert E Lee wrote:
Every Democrat is prepared to vote for this bill, and at least 10-12 Republicans couldn’t care less about their constituents. They have the votes. They don’t care about the American people. Amazingly, there is a supermajority of Senators who are more in tune with the whims of foreign lobbies than with the security needs of the American people.

Here is what is/isn't in the so called immigration bill.

&#9726;Immediate Amnesty; Security Never

&#9726;Permanent Defacto amnesty

&#9726;Pork

&#9726;Triggers

This is the single worst piece of legislation to come before the Senate since obamacare.
The Republicans and the Democrats are in touch with their corporate owners who love lots of illegals depressing wages for legal workers, and providing even cheaper labor for those who employ illegals.

Profits increase- American workers suffer- but hey- profits increase.

Increased profits and increased political "contributions" - so who can complain?

Well, American workers - but without strong unions -who gives a damn what they want.
Informed Opinion

United States

#16329 Jun 23, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't think that you paid any attention to my post. You are correct. I have been saying that it is one party disguised as a two party system.
Now you understand why I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am a conservative with some Libertarian ideals. I am a realist as I see you are becoming. Nothing wrong with that. keep on thinking for yourself.
BTW as you pointed out, the Democrats do get one thing out of a huge increase of new legal aliens votes, and lots of them. But again does it really matter as we have a single party disguised as two parties?
It is all about power and money and changing America to a socialist state.
Agreed that it's one party disguised as two, but that party doesn't want a socialist state - that would destroy the corporations and the überrich, the owners of one-party America.

Instead it's goal is Fascism - privatizing profits, and socializing costs - the goal of every Fascist state.
Informed Opinion

United States

#16330 Jun 23, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I think the idea of socialism without corruption is how Jesus intended us to live. We are the reason socialism will never work. We are corrupt, but not evil. Aristocrasy is evil. Capitalism is fueled by greed which isn't much better.
Great post.

Every wonder why it's so hard for people to just agree that it's extremism that creates the problems.

Unregulated capitalism, because it doesn't limit human greed and avarice, always leads to monopolies and Fascism - always has - always will.

Unfettered socialism always leads to poverty because it doesn't take advantage of human greed and avarice.

A mixed economy - regulated capitalism mixed with enough socialism to prevent the formation of oligarchies is the only economic system that ever has worked - or ever will.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16331 Jun 23, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed that it's one party disguised as two, but that party doesn't want a socialist state - that would destroy the corporations and the überrich, the owners of one-party America.
Instead it's goal is Fascism - privatizing profits, and socializing costs - the goal of every Fascist state.
This is one of your best thought out posts. I am not sure what type of government they are after. It could be Fascist or Communist. I said socialist to be polite. It could be The New World Order, in which the United States, Canada, and Mexico actually become one country with no borders. Just like The European Union. I have read that Africa is trying to form a United African Union. I really have no idea what is the real plans, but it is not going to be good for us whatever they are. The people are just an after thought, if that.
Who

Nicholson, GA

#16332 Jun 24, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>

Every wonder why it's so hard for people to just agree that it's extremism that creates the problems.
Unregulated capitalism, because it doesn't limit human greed and avarice, always leads to monopolies and Fascism - always has - always will.

Seems like you only got one out of 14. Course it's possible you may have it bassakwards, that Fascism may lead to monopolies.

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism

http://rense.com/general37/char.htm
Who

Nicholson, GA

#16333 Jun 24, 2013
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#16334 Jun 24, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>You are correct. They want to say that they will give us border security if we allow 30 million people to get away with breaking the laws of this country.
We should have already had good border security years ago. Border security has nothing to do with the illegal aliens that wish to be given amnesty. The only thing in common is that they wouldn't be here in the first place if we had border security. We would not be having this conversation. True?
Border security is a joke - always has been and always will be.

Until you throw those who employ illegals into prison- the illegals will come to America for the jobs.

When people start demanding the arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of the employers, we'll know their serious.

Until then, they just want to waste more taxpayers' money on guns, helicopters, and other "neat" toys.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#16335 Jun 24, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>This is one of your best thought out posts. I am not sure what type of government they are after. It could be Fascist or Communist. I said socialist to be polite. It could be The New World Order, in which the United States, Canada, and Mexico actually become one country with no borders. Just like The European Union. I have read that Africa is trying to form a United African Union. I really have no idea what is the real plans, but it is not going to be good for us whatever they are. The people are just an after thought, if that.
Great post.(And from cranky me !)

Just some random thoughts from the revolutionary breakfast gang.

The average folks in Central America hate CAFTA. The multinationals wanted cheaper, nonunion labor, and to pollute and destroy the environment,(privatize privatize profits and externalize costs).
Their way of life and culture was overthrown to use their cheap labor, and now - in the race to the bottom - the jobs are being moved to Indonesia and China.

The average folks in Mexico hate NAFTA.
The multinationals wanted cheaper, nonunion labor, and to pollute and destroy the environment,(privatize privatize profits and externalize costs). Their way of life and culture was overthrown to use their cheap labor, and now - in the race to the bottom - the jobs are being moved to Indonesia and China.

America decimated Haiti's entire agriculture industry by forcing Haiti to import government subsidized American grain and rice.
We needed somewhere to dump our surpluses created by subsidizing American agribusiness.

Unregulated capitalism is nobody's friend - no matter how "touchy-geeky" those Halliburton ads are. Just as American corporations charged $5.00 a bottle to provide our troops bottled water with fecal material included,(at no extra charge), it always aims to screw the common man.

Socialism without capitalism always fails because laziness and avarice are ever-present human traits, and we are always willing to let others carry our water, to varying degrees, and then nobody will carry the water at all.

But hey... A "Mixed Economy" always provides great French Toast.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#16336 Jun 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Congratulations, you posted more definitions of what "theology" is. If you cannot read those definitions and then read Cone's "reimagining" of what theology is, and see the difference, there really is no point in continuing this.
"study of the nature of God"
"study...of God's attributes and relations to the universe"
"study of God and God's relation to the world"
These recognize that God is unchanging and that the nature of God is NOT dependent on the historical context.

Just how does Cone's redefinition that God must be interpreted with historical and theological traditions and CANNOT be written for "all times, places and persons" possibly "fit" into those definitions. The sheer arrogance of Cone's pronouncement is jaw dropping. Obviously, you are determined not to recognize the difference - fine, feel free. May we please drop this. It is pointless.
Geez, you cherry pick definitions like you cherry pick quotes.

It is man's understanding of God and Its nature that changes, thus the continued effort to study and re-evaluate man's understanding of God's relationship to the universe. If everything were as fixed as you you portray why has human history shown us moving from animism, to polytheism, to monotheism, was it because God's nature and relationship to the universe changed, or did man's understanding of the universe change nessitating a change in how God is viewed. Theology reflects man's study, man's understanding, so of course it is going to be continuely changing.

Here is a definition to ponder...

conservative

Adjective
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

Noun
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

"May we please drop this. It is pointless."
Sure, don't respond.
Leopold Thorogosky III

Jefferson, GA

#16337 Jun 24, 2013
nessitating?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#16338 Jun 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez, you cherry pick definitions like you cherry pick quotes.
It is man's understanding of God and Its nature that changes, thus the continued effort to study and re-evaluate man's understanding of God's relationship to the universe. If everything were as fixed as you you portray why has human history shown us moving from animism, to polytheism, to monotheism, was it because God's nature and relationship to the universe changed, or did man's understanding of the universe change nessitating a change in how God is viewed. Theology reflects man's study, man's understanding, so of course it is going to be continuely changing.
Here is a definition to ponder...
conservative
Adjective
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
"May we please drop this. It is pointless."
Sure, don't respond.
I would LOVE to quit responding, but when you post things which have nothing to do with the original argument in order to try and "prove" your point......
Nor do I cherry pick definitions or quotes, you supplied the additional definitions (which completely supported my point), I took the relevant phrases out to contrast them with Cone's definition - that was also supplied and - I have given you the source of the quotes I used -A Black Theology of Liberation (for the fourth time.)

We were not "discussing" the development of various theologies, which is what you just posted about. We were talking about Christian Theology vs Black Liberation Theology. ANOTHER poster than myself (one on YOUR side of the political fence) asked someone to name "any" minister that wasn't pro Republican, I responded Jeremiah Wright. That same poster then asserted that Jeremiah Wright was hardly "mainstream." I agreed and stated that Jeremiah Wright was actually an adherent of Black Liberation Theology.

You responded "thanking" God that I could "tell us who the True Christians are". The argument has always been is BLT accepted as "mainstream" Christian doctrine by Christian Theologians. The answer continues to be "NO" - and Cone gives his definition what he considers to be the irrefutable high ground by saying : you cannot use a "white definition" to argue against his definition -(post 16173). He thus destroys his own argument by stating that definitions are relative.

You now once again try to change the subject by posting definitions of "conservative" in some lame attempt to try and bolster your position that you have continually not been able to support.
I will repeat: Try Again.

But I would really prefer you didn't - you have yet to support your position and no one else is interested. If you really want to continue - send me a message and we can continue this "off thread" to your heart's content.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#16339 Jun 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I would LOVE to quit responding, but when you post things which have nothing to do with the original argument in order to try and "prove" your point......
Nor do I cherry pick definitions or quotes, you supplied the additional definitions (which completely supported my point), I took the relevant phrases out to contrast them with Cone's definition - that was also supplied and - I have given you the source of the quotes I used -A Black Theology of Liberation (for the fourth time.)
We were not "discussing" the development of various theologies, which is what you just posted about. We were talking about Christian Theology vs Black Liberation Theology. ANOTHER poster than myself (one on YOUR side of the political fence) asked someone to name "any" minister that wasn't pro Republican, I responded Jeremiah Wright. That same poster then asserted that Jeremiah Wright was hardly "mainstream." I agreed and stated that Jeremiah Wright was actually an adherent of Black Liberation Theology.
You responded "thanking" God that I could "tell us who the True Christians are". The argument has always been is BLT accepted as "mainstream" Christian doctrine by Christian Theologians. The answer continues to be "NO" - and Cone gives his definition what he considers to be the irrefutable high ground by saying : you cannot use a "white definition" to argue against his definition -(post 16173). He thus destroys his own argument by stating that definitions are relative.
You now once again try to change the subject by posting definitions of "conservative" in some lame attempt to try and bolster your position that you have continually not been able to support.
I will repeat: Try Again.
But I would really prefer you didn't - you have yet to support your position and no one else is interested. If you really want to continue - send me a message and we can continue this "off thread" to your heart's content.
Actually it's the same discussion that always comes up, you feel that you are in a position to say who is a Christian and who is not. Whether you call it mainstream, true christians, or Christian Theologians, it all comes out the same. Hell, you even claimed that the conservative Episcopalian Bishops of Africa are closest to the truth than their liberal American cousins - who are probably Democrats.

You bring up the definition of Theology, which clearly states that it's the study of God, and ignore who is doing the studying - man, confusing the subject of study with the act. You claim that man's changing understanding of the universe has no contexual significance is such study because the subject of the study is unchanging, yet Theology is how Man views God, not how God views God.

You are the epitome of what Cone is describing and you find that offensive, and while you may think that pondering the definition of a conservative is an attempt to change the subject, in reality it goes right to the heart of this subject.

You have the power to end this discussion any time you want.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
might be moving to Brunswick Tue sick of it all 3
Best Clubs in the Darien,Brunswick area (Jan '11) Oct 25 Danny Noonan 3
*Missing Person* Amber Whited (Jul '13) Oct 17 your wrong 8
Are you a Southern Democrat? Oct 16 voter 2
Did Morenos court order shut down Kingsland and... Oct 15 Cold War Warrior 5
The Red Carpet (Jul '13) Oct 15 HGN 3
Help in Woodbine!!!!!! Oct 15 Political Traveler 8
Brunswick Dating
Find my Match

Brunswick People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Brunswick News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brunswick

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]