My original post is in black, and response to ican in blue.
ican's answers are in green.
Can you guess why terrorism in America has decreased? Has it anything to do with the restrictions now imposed on public transportation in and out of the US?
Of course! And it also has to do with effective communications surveillance.
Effective communications? You're kidding! Most in our intelligence don't understand nor speak any Arabic languages.
Do you also know that over 90 percent of containers coming into the US is not inspected?
Yep! So what? People are terrorists and not container contents with inadequate air for breathing.
You miss the whole point of those containers coming into the US without any security inspections. Anybody can load WMDs in them. DUH!
It's good that you now feel secure, but it's simply out of ignorance. Especially since the Homeland Security Department is in shambles with resignations from those with real experience.
What makes you think I feel secure? There is the terrible to contemplate possibility that Democrats will control the Congress. Democrat incompetency in correctly recognizing the realities of the terrorist threat to humanity has been well demonstrated.
You have learned the Bushco scare tactics very well. What makes you think Bush has done a competent job at securing our safety? He's responsible for the increase in worldwide terrorism a thousand-fold, and you're worried about the democrats?
...
"Many" just doesn't cut it; the majority of Americans want stem cell research to proceed. Your other arguments using christian values belong in church and not in national policies.
One's values, whether theologic, atheist, or agnostic belong by free individual choice in the free exercise of one's life regardless of where one chooses to exercise them.
Imposing religious belief on the citizens of this country by executive order is contrary to the intent of our founding fathers. We are supposed to have the freedoms to pursue happiness without government restrictions in according with our Constitutiion and Bill of Rights.
Where in the Constitution is it written that theologic values belong only in church?
Legislating Federal judges claim this says that:
Quote:
The Bill of Rights (1791)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
But this does not say that. This Amendment is a prohibition against government establishing a religion. This Amendment is a prohibition against government prohibiting the free exercise of religion by any means.
You're just ignorant of the interpretations of many of our founding fathers concerning the separation of church and state. I'm sure you will be ready to accept Islam just because it's a majority in some countries. Imposing personal religious beliefs to affect the rest of society in any country is never a good idea.
But when federal judges legislate they usurp powers the Constitution does not grant them.
Quote:
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.[/size]
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
This is a different ball of wax than the officials of our government imposing their own brand of religion on the rest of society.
...
Using his religious' beliefs to impact all Americans is just plain wrong. Even many christians want embryonic stem cell research to proceed without any handicaps by the feds.
What people want and what people have a right to have are different things. There is no prohibition in the Constitution against a federal official "using his religious' beliefs to impact all Americans." He simply cannot use those beliefs to enact a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Not when it involves imposing personal religious' beliefs on the rest of society. We also (should) have the freedom from religion. Something you and your ilk will never comprehend.
ican wrote: Ok! Go try to elect a Congress that will approve an amendment to prohibit anyone establishing a religion, and to prohibit anyone freely exercising a religion.
Nobody's trying to prevent the establihsment of religion, or to freely excercise religion. You are dense. I'm against people of religion forcing their beliefs on the rest of us through legislation that has no such belief.
So what do you think Sen Kerry's remark is worth to the GOP?
Two per cent? Four?
Zero. They are trying to make hay out of a slipped comment.
It will probably fire up their base a little bit, but I highly doubt it will swing voters to their side.
At this point, they are grabbing anything they can get.
I wonder how today's assault of a consitutent of Allen by his campaign staffers is going to go over?
Cycloptichorn
More than one percent. It only gives the GOP a defense in all the mess they created in Iraq, our economy, and world affairs. For most with some brain left, Iraq is still the defining issue for most Americans. This war that was supposed to be quick and easy with the Iraqis welcoming us as liberators, has now lasted longer than WWII. A few misspoken words by a politician is no worse than our own soldiers raping and killing innocent Iraqi civilians.
I disagree. (edit- not with c.i., he was too quick for me) It's very easy to make powerful political capital out of that.
"The Dems disrespect our troops- listen to their spokesman"
"The Dems will not support our troops if they get in"
"The Dems are not patriotic"
I think this is one statement that's not going to be allowed to be forgotten.
McTag wrote:I disagree. It's very easy to make powerful political capital out of that.
"The Dems disrespect our troops- listen to their spokesman"
"The Dems will not support our troops if they get in"
"The Dems are not patriotic"
I think this is one statement that's not going to be allowed to be forgotten.
Two problems with this:
First, the Republicans have been saying these same things all along, whilst merrily screwing the job up themselves.
Second, I don't think anyone sees Kerry as a spokesman for the Democratic party these days.
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:ican is not capable of seeing all the destruction and mayhem the Bushco gang has created for this world in their six years in control of the administration. They fail to see the increased cost every day in lives and treasure while Bush continued his "stay the course" rhetoric until he learned that the GOPs running for office next month are in big shettle.
Even active soldiers are beginning to speak out against their involvement in Iraq; something that never happened in our country.
The Bush legacy is kapput!
Your right,it has never happened.
Except during the Vietnam conflict,when hundreds of active duty soldiers spoke out against the war.
Is your memory that short?
cicerone imposter wrote:ican wrote: Ok! Go try to elect a Congress that will approve an amendment to prohibit anyone establishing a religion, and to prohibit anyone freely exercising a religion.
Nobody's trying to prevent the establihsment of religion, or to freely excercise religion. You are dense. I'm against people of religion forcing their beliefs on the rest of us through legislation that has no such belief.
Yea, Aaa, dern, I mus' be dense!
I t'o't y'was "trying to prevent the establihsment of religion, or to freely excercise religion."
Me too maybe! I, t'ink I's "against people of religion forcing their beliefs on the rest of us through legislation that has no such belief."
What does "forcing their beliefs" mean? What does "legislation that has no such belief" mean? Who's doing that stuff? How are they doing that stuff?
mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican is not capable of seeing all the destruction and mayhem the Bushco gang has created for this world in their six years in control of the administration. They fail to see the increased cost every day in lives and treasure while Bush continued his "stay the course" rhetoric until he learned that the GOPs running for office next month are in big shettle.
Even active soldiers are beginning to speak out against their involvement in Iraq; something that never happened in our country.
The Bush legacy is kapput!
Your right,it has never happened.
Except during the Vietnam conflict,when hundreds of active duty soldiers spoke out against the war.
Is your memory that short?
And the RW is still calling those active duty soldiers that spoke out "traitors". Not much has changed.
McTag wrote:I disagree. (edit- not with c.i., he was too quick for me) It's very easy to make powerful political capital out of that.
"The Dems disrespect our troops- listen to their spokesman"
"The Dems will not support our troops if they get in"
"The Dems are not patriotic"
I think this is one statement that's not going to be allowed to be forgotten.
It is rhetoric that doesn't mean a thing.
The RW has claimed over and over that the dems don't like our troops. This is nothing new and even less likely to have any response now. People are seeing through the desperate tactics.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican is not capable of seeing all the destruction and mayhem the Bushco gang has created for this world in their six years in control of the administration. ...
Cicerone imposter is not capable of deducing from events prior to Bush's presidency what "the destruction and mayhem" would have been, would be now, and would have become, if the Bush administration had continued the Clinton approach in strict conformity with Clinton's continuing advice.
Hmmmmm .... neither are most Democrats capable of deducing from events prior to Bush's presidency what "the destruction and mayhem" would have been, would be now, and would have become, if the Bush administration had continued the Clinton approach in strict conformity with Clinton's continuing advice.
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican is not capable of seeing all the destruction and mayhem the Bushco gang has created for this world in their six years in control of the administration. ...
Cicerone imposter is not capable of deducing from events prior to Bush's presidency what "the destruction and mayhem" would have been, would be now, and would have become, if the Bush administration had continued the Clinton approach in strict conformity with Clinton's continuing advice.
Hmmmmm .... neither are most Democrats capable of deducing from events prior to Bush's presidency what "the destruction and mayhem" would have been, would be now, and would have become, if the Bush administration had continued the Clinton approach in strict conformity with Clinton's continuing advice.
Yes imagine how terrible it would have been without the fiasco in Iraq???
:
parados wrote:
...
The RW has claimed over and over that the dems don't like our troops. This is nothing new and even less likely to have any response now. People are seeing through the desperate tactics.
The voters--except for any dead voters voting--will by election day realize that the psychotic Democrats are a far greater threat to our security than the neurotic Republicans.
ROFLMAO
Bushco creates a longer war in Iraq than WWII for a cause that's been changed many times, and ican has the gall to call democrats psychotic!
cicerone imposter wrote:ROFLMAO
Bushco creates a longer war in Iraq than WWII for a cause that's been changed many times, and ican has the gall to call democrats psychotic!
Because the Bush administration is neurotic it, like most of the Republicans, has failed to fight the Iraq war like FDR and Truman fought WWII.
Because the Democrats are psychotic they are easily led into the Sorosicrat's web of criticism absent ideas to fix wrongs.
That is schizophrenic if you truly believe it. If you don't truly believe it, it's pure fraud.
