NCclimber

And the above translates into "We have a president who has openly told us that GOD has told him that this WAR is good"? Can you put both feet behind your head?

I just thought it was funny. What next? Are you going to claim this proves I opposed Carter's deregulation of the airlines?

Back atcha fancy pants: From Wikipedia I'll have to go reseearch the story about Bush telling a minister that he felt God was trying to send him a message. And the last one - an impomptu service on Air force One - big whoop Getting back to your claim We have a president who has openly told us that GOD has told him that this WAR is good..", we actually have the word of one person, who claims he heard something along those lines, in a private meeting and that he wasn't speaking literally... not to mention others dispute Bush said anything like that. That "openly told us" bit is quite a stretch.

From Breitbart:

Source?

I haven't heard anyone slam Bush for being Christian. I have heard people slam him for saying God speaks to him and tells him what to do (or something similar to that). The former is a state of religiosity, the latter a state of idiocy. Blues, Dave Okay, How about the claims he's trying to turn this country into a Christian theocracy???

Nice catch. I was looking those times she did not mention his middle name, despite the assertion of: The key word was NEVER. "They never speak of him without mentioning ALL THREE NAMES" doesn't sound *near* as ominous as "And they used his middle name ONCE in the article!!" Without naming names, I've noticed quite a few posters on this site who seem inclined to make extreme comparisons or use absolutes when the actual situation is decidedly more benign.

Nice catch. I was looking those times she did not mention his middle name, despite the assertion of: The key word was NEVER.

I don't see myself ever making excuses for this sort of dirt. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not that it would keep you from fanning the flames, eh?

And we're all so thankful that no one associated with (or favoring) the Democrats ever resorts to low brow tactics. What IS Dan Rather up to these days?

I think Kallend already addressed this. Do a wikipedia search for "line item veto".

Anyone notice the Debbie Schlussel excerpt does not mention his middle name. Ironic.

I think you mean that the poor of america lives better than the poor of the rest of the planet. If so, i tend to agree. However to some american dude who has to work 14 hours a day and still doesn´t make enough money to provide for his family the whole month will not help much to know that some people in some country he cannot even locate in a map has to walk 30 Km to get water... Especially if across his town there is others who works 4 hours and drive Mercedes. It is a matter of relativity and perception. That is what keeps many people going, that their situation may be only temporary and that if they work hard enough they will be able to work only 4 hours and drive a mercedes, but i think those "opportunities" are overstimated. It is just not that easy and rich people know it. A clever politician could spread the word that those opportunities to increase the quality of life are being hampered by (communism, facism, socialism, whatever) to further their agenda and rally everybody to support him. Please tell me more about these people (and their jobs) who work four hours and drive a Mercedes. Are these entry level jobs? Or are you talking about people who have busted their asses, week in/week out, for 10, 20 or 30 years, so that they can now coast a bit?

Considering registerd Dems and Repubs both outnumber registered Libertarians, something like 200 to 1, I doubt either party is interested in such a small piece of the pie, if it means losing some of their base.

Saddam Hussein? Omar al-Bashir? The "one child only" policies of China? Please enlighten us.

Unfortunately it's also unconstitutional. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Speaking of letting the two dominant parties know about voter discontent - how about adding a "none of the above" option for all Presidential and US Congress races.

At the same time, they run the risk of alienating their existing base.

it's sad that so many think that Oops. I forgot to add: "and legalize pot"

Last week I saw P.J. O'Rourke on C-Span2. He was talking about the absurdity of having a Libertarian candidate for President. The gist of it was "who the hell is going to vote for a person who's whole campaign is about all the benefits he's going to take away from the American public". Libertarianism - great ideology, but don't expect your guy to win any national elections.

So, let's all take a non-judgemental, relativistic approach instead of calling a spade a spade.

Quite possibly true, but I'd bet the number of posts (in Speakers Corner) attacking Christians/Christianity outnumbers attacks on all those groups combined.

She does a spectacular job staying in character... spectacular.

Awe, come on. Everybody knows you're an intolerant, narrow-minded, ultra-conservative, warmonger, neo-con fascist!!!

Unfortunately, a number of people on this forum use the extreme actions of a few to justify their treatment of Christianity, as a whole.