Bush is a hero

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168633 Sep 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>All I meant was that having been VP puts him in a different category than Reagan.
Republican mythology holds that the public turned away from Bush because he wasn't Reagan, but the truth is he'd have been a two term President but for Ross Perot.
"Read my lips, no new taxes".


The Republicans didn't forgive him, and the Democrats used it against him. Perot didn't help, but it was Bush41's actions that drove his voters into Perot's camp.
courteous europhobe

Plymouth, NH

#168634 Sep 19, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.N. report "suggested"? Now that's a definite statement.
Perhaps obama should have stated his case beginning with, "Once upon a time". However, since this is military talk, maybe it should be, "This ain't no sh1t".
I suggest that before obama commit the USA to a war, he might want something more than "suggested" as his proof.
Oh, I'm sorry I'm not for any US intervention in Syria. World idiotpeacemaker guy tho professes to be antiwar tho...did he make any comments on the gassing of civilians p'rhaps blame it on the neocons?

The statement did not come from Obama. It came from some Euros.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#168635 Sep 19, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Tam. It's also a SPIRITUAL contract, between a man and a woman and the Lord, instituted by God Himself.
---
Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said,“It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky...20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
---
That other business 10 days ago--that was because you were rude to Chris. Nobody gets to mistreat MY friends without me having something to say about it.
Oh, OK.

Now, about my question. It's just a legal contract, right?

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#168636 Sep 19, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said and thanks. I was also thinking of how God tells us this:
husbands love your wife just as Christ has loved the church. For the Christian marriage is so much more than a contract. Its a constant reminder of the bride of Christ and the church. Again I have no problem if homosexuals want to enter into a contract or civil union. My concern is that the day may come when the government by force will insist on a church recognizing something it doesn't.
You mean like law?

What will you do when it's law, Chris?

Oh yeah, it is.

What are you doing about it, Chris?

Accept it? Hopefully? Maybe?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168637 Sep 19, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like law?
What will you do when it's law, Chris?
Oh yeah, it is.
What are you doing about it, Chris?
Accept it? Hopefully? Maybe?
I have no problem wth gay marriage. I'm in the 'I don't care' category. I'm glad the law passed. I'm not proud to admit that I'm sick to death of the topic and the incessant whining but there you have it. Who'd have thought 4+-% of the population could make so much noise?

My interest now turns to the divorce and annulment issues which are bound to follow and I'm particularly interested in how a gay marriage can be legally consumated. Currently the defintion of consumation must include erection and penetration by the man of the woman with 'emission of seed' so that clearly presents a problem. I suppose we should anticipate some handy dandy pretzel-like rewriting of that defintion to fit same sex marriages so that annulments can be granted. Catholic gay annulments I think will be especially colorful. I envison court cases in some complicated goofy proceeding where a battery operated device will at some point become exhibit A and a potential culprit. I look forward with great anticipation to the onslaught of late night comedy routines which will undoubedly ensue on the termination of some of these marriages where a baffled Pope will most likely be involved.

Adultery in a same sex marriage will be another legal hurdle at some point but I'm confident that over time a case will set a legal precedent and solve that little hiccup. Anyway these two issues will eventually be resolved and that's a good thing because maybe then we can finally stop talking about the personal relationships of a tiny (but very loud) portion of the population.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168638 Sep 19, 2013
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>There it is. If we've learned nothing else here, it's Don't Foller The Red Fishies.
Red herrings? Look to the White House. It's a fish farm.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/obama-red-lin...
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168639 Sep 19, 2013
Red herring of the week. Time magazine.



Time’s editors this week are shielding Americans from the demoralizing picture of Putin, putting a cheerful, sky-blue photo on the covers of magazines distributed in the United States.

"IT'S TIME TO PAY COLLEGE ATHELETES," says the chirpy, non-political U.S. cover, which shows a ball-carrying football player with arm outstretched.

The cover most Americans saw at the checkout counter overlooked a widely perceived fumble by President Barack Obama that left Russia to carry the ball in the Syrian war.
===

I'd call that one decisive monster size red herring in which anyone out fishing today might be heard muttering, "we're gonna need a bigger boat."
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168640 Sep 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Sure looks like you're interested in winning to me, because you've repeated that I do it tooooooo and worserest several times now.
I didn't say Lyndi was the only person to use ridicule (let alone that she was the worst), I didn't say I never used ridicule.
If you need me to admit something I never denied - I have used ridicule from time to time.
Feel better now?
I'm not opposed to selective ridicule. Used correctly, it can be an effective tool to reach the otherwise unreachable. I think it should be used only as a last resort though when all else has failed to finally hammer into someones pointy little head a fact they steadfastly refuse to accept as truth...... for example: Obama is a bumbling, fumbling buffoon, always was and always will be.
HipGnozizzz

Dahinda, IL

#168641 Sep 19, 2013
Bless his pointy little head.
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
That was before she got those four Americans killed in Benghazi, and lied to the American public about it.
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>What I've heard is that there is no proof to absolutely say who used the gas.
He's got no problem assigning blame for American deaths in the Mideast to a fellow(?) American, but somehow gets all judicious about assigning blame for Mideast deaths to a brutal Mideastern dictator.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168642 Sep 19, 2013
HipGnozizzz wrote:
Bless his pointy little head.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
He's got no problem assigning blame for American deaths in the Mideast to a fellow(?) American, but somehow gets all judicious about assigning blame for Mideast deaths to a brutal Mideastern dictator.
How's the hunt going for those bad guys who killed the 4 Americans at Benghazi anyway? About the same as OJ Simpsons search for the real killer maybe?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168643 Sep 19, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>If she could win, Obama wouldn't have gotten a first term, much less a second.
That was just a simple case of a black candidate trumping the white girl. No worries. She'll get her turn at bat and this go round anyone who doesn't vote for her can't be called a racist. Whew! No siree, they can't use that one. The libs tag line for non support of Hillary will be, "you must hate women."
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168644 Sep 19, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
My favorite potential presidential candidate at the moment has very little government experience, but has so much common sense that I think it could make up for it... Doctor Benjamin Carson.
And the old switcheroo can commence. Carson runs, libs oppose him and republicans can call the dems ----> racist.
Wheeeee
I'd pay admission to see that one!

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168645 Sep 19, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just a simple case of a black candidate trumping the white girl. No worries. She'll get her turn at bat and this go round anyone who doesn't vote for her can't be called a racist. Whew! No siree, they can't use that one. The libs tag line for non support of Hillary will be, "you must hate women."
We'll go from being racists to being misogynist... ain't life grand.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168646 Sep 19, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
And the old switcheroo can commence. Carson runs, libs oppose him and republicans can call the dems ----> racist.
Wheeeee
I'd pay admission to see that one!
The flaw in your statement, most folks on the right don't use race as a weapon. They understand that one disagreeing with another's political policies PROBABLY has nothing to do with the person's race.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168647 Sep 19, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
The flaw in your statement, most folks on the right don't use race as a weapon. They understand that one disagreeing with another's political policies PROBABLY has nothing to do with the person's race.
I know, Bobin. I was just musing aloud a fantasy payback for all the phoney accusations the left has thrown at anyone opposing Obama.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168648 Sep 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Failing to win a party's nomination once doesn't mean much. Just off the top of my head Reagan tried in '68 and '76 before winning in '80.
That said, do you think Hillary Clinton has another 15 years to wait?
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not predicting she'll run or that she'd win - but losing the nomination to Obama in '08 isn't a predictor.
I'm predicting she'll run and lose. A chance at the Presidency, after all the foot-shooting the GOP has done in the last 15 years, will bring out a plethora of wannabe-conservatives, end-of-days nuts, and birthers, foaming at the polls...even if the GOP runs Putin.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168649 Sep 19, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we may have actually found some common ground here. Isnt that about the time all this Religious Right chit started?
The conservatives sold their souls to the christian coalition to get their votes basically.
Yep.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168650 Sep 19, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>That said, do you think Hillary Clinton has another 15 years to wait?
<quoted text>I'm predicting she'll run and lose. A chance at the Presidency, after all the foot-shooting the GOP has done in the last 15 years, will bring out a plethora of wannabe-conservatives, end-of-days nuts, and birthers, foaming at the polls...even if the GOP runs Putin.
...what line do the truther nuts stand in, foaming?
HipGnozizzz

Dahinda, IL

#168651 Sep 19, 2013
News Frothy-lipped Quasi-Cons Will Ignore:

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Admiral Mullen, in your review, did you have access to all military information, data, and people necessary to evaluate the military's response?

MULLEN: I did.

CUMMINGS: And I understand from your interview transcript that you conducted this examination not once but twice. Is that correct?

MULLEN: The first time Mr. Cummings was to -- with actually, with all members of the ARB, we went to the Pentagon to review it in detail. And then the second time I went back by myself when this became an issue that there were certainly questions being raised about it. I went back again to verify and validate what I had done before and I found nothing different in that, the military response. The military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time.

MULLEN: It goes to our core, when people are in trouble, to do everything we possibly can to help them out. And there were many forces that moved that night, including a special operation force in Europe that ended up in a base in southern Europe, a large special operations force from the United States which moved under direction as soon as -- as soon as they were given orders. A group of Marines that essentially were sent in from Spain into Tripoli the next day. It literally became -- this is not something you can just wish to happen instantly. There's a lot of planning, preparation, as rapidly -- to do it as rapidly as one can do it.

CUMMINGS: So admiral, what do you say in response to those members who continue to this day to imply that the military somehow fell down on the job?

MULLEN: They didn't fall down on the job and I just completely disagree with that view.

PICKERING: I think the point that has just been made by Admiral Mullen is very important. We have over 270 consulates and embassies around the world in some very isolated and strange places. The responsibility for their primary security rests with the host country. Where that does not exist as it did in Benghazi, it falls back on us to do it. The report we provided you and others provides the recommendations to deal with those particular cases. We are not able to count on the U.S. military, as Admiral Mullen said, always being positioned to come in short notice to deal with those issues. So we must do better on the ground.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168652 Sep 19, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
...what line do the truther nuts stand in, foaming?
That would be the 'crazy but not stupid' line.

What line do itchy, nervous people stand in? Waving their tiny American flags?

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min Riverside Rednek 59,316
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min kent 695,378
"You Might Be A Liberal If..." 29 min Libs R Dumbacrats 3
CNN: Bill Cosby past away today after long batt... (Dec '08) 1 hr How does it feel 93
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Robert F 994,029
topix is a joke and unfair to the people who s... (Jan '09) 7 hr Ricky F 27
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 8 hr verykinky 446,246
More from around the web