NCclimber

Fox reported this on September 12th, too. So, how is it an "Alert" if it happened YESTERDAY?!? Perhaps the OP just wanted to see who would bite.

Hillary wins it all. Republicans gain seats in both the Senate and the House, but not regain control of either.

How does that address the specifics of my post?

Fox reported this on September 12th, too.

So what's the full context in which it was written. Was in not in reply to the Danbury letter? The letter was "to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference." IOW the FEDERAL government would not prohibit you from being a church. Right. It was a federal matter prohibiting mandatory membership/participation in one national church. It was legal for state constitutions to support official state religions during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Funny how what Jefferson wrote has come to mean nativity scenes are prohibited on the town square. What's your point? He was the principle author of the f-ing Declaration of Independence and one of the greatest minds to ever walk this earth. My point is Jefferson wasn't involved in the writing of our Constitution. Why so testy?

This whole thing is pretty silly. The contentious statement was "Unfortunately most people who join are in middle to low income families who need money for school." First off, most of our population are middle or low income. Makes sense that most of our recruits would come from this demographic. Secondly, I missed where you proved that most people who join, do so for the educational benefits.

What's your point?

Like what? Anything specific? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141874/posts Ok, well on the one hand I really don't see the point in that kind of lawsuit, seems like a waste of time, however, I can't see how it actually affects anyone one way or the other. If I lived there I think I'd be finding it very hard to raise a flicker of interest either way As a stand alone issue it is pretty irrelevant. However, it was presented a a specific example of a fairly significant trend.

Like what? Anything specific? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141874/posts

Yeah but since the US bombed Tripoli in 1986 I don't think the treaty counts any more Or even 185 years earlier.

OK, but what does that mean? How is America run as a Christian nation rather than a secular nation? Who are you saying is trying to change America into a non Christian nation? For this to be an honest discussion, we need to distinquish the goverment (and the laws governing it) from the people. The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian. I'm pretty sure all of them believed in the God of Christianity and Judaism, even if they did not support organized religion. While they were men of faith, they opposed a theocratic goverment. In writing our Constitution, they intentionally addressed religion (and the associated rights) in a specific and limited manner. For the first 150 years of our history, Christianity was a major part of who we were as a nation. Christian messages and symbols were placed on many of our national monuments and symbols. Prayer at public events was standard fare. For the last 60 years or so, there has been a constant effort to remove many of these Christian aspects from our society. Some of the changes are quite reasonable. Some are totally absurd, basically overriding the wishes of the clear majority in favor of a few malcontents. The ACLU has profitted greatly off of seeing how far they can re-interpret the so-called "establishment clause". For the last 20 years, there has been a counter effort by Christian groups stop stop the erosion of Christianity from American life. As a result, we have some rather extreme groups leading the charge. Unfortunately, the get the headlines, so many people think they are representative of Christians in this country. Bummer.

And researchers/professors/scientists will continue to recieve funding as long as their research supports the agenda of those backers. Excellent point, piper.

Funny how people rarely mention the context in which the above was written. Anyway, what role did Jefferson play in the writing of our Constitution? You mean they weren't talking about an official religion of the nation, akin to the Church of England? You mention Jefferson and Madison... what where their thoughts on official State religions? Did they object to the States that made official religions part of their Constitutions? You mean it's all fiction?

This is right up there with the Klan's take on Blacks. Such an enlightened perspective. Do you always look for the worst exceptions to paint with a broad brush?

The "proof" is the credibility of the persons in question and who pays them. So, previously you were actually saying Scooter Libby financed this book? That's what you were saying? Or was that just a red herring?

Good point. It goes to the credibility of the individual actually making the claims - the book's author.

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda. Riiiight. We should just your claim without any supporting evidence. so, what are you saying? That the oil companies are secretly funding all these scientists? That these scientist's conclussions are simply the result of sound research? Thousands upon thousands of scientists? Are we talking experts on this matter, who have done their own research? Or are you talking about anyone who can honestly be considered a scientist? If you can actually refute the subject matter and it's implications, I'd be happy to read what you have to say. But this barrage of "don't believe them" rings a bit hollow.

So, who is the "Hudson Institute"? Checking SourceWatch.org; Hudson Institute Hmmm . . . I think we find the "usual suspects" of ExxonMobile ect, but one of the Senior Adviors that caught my eye was none other than . . . I. Lewis Scooter Libby. Uh . . . ok, I think we can safely put any concept of this "analysis" into the highly biased category. I guess actually refuting their findings is out of the question, eh?

Not as much as some would have us believe. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Post the links and lets all have some fun for once Oh hell I will do it myself. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ I scored: Economic Left/Right: -1.60 Libertarian/Authoritarian: +0.70 How about you?

To me, the key thing is determining what defines a person as being a lefty or a righty. Based on what you've posted here, you seem to think anyone to the right of you fits that rigid, far right mold. I've always thought of myself as leaning right, but I've tried to distinguish my views from those less, as well as more conservative. I can get that there are conservatives that are less conservative than I am. I've taken several of those political leanings tests and they all peg me as a moderate. The Political Compass test and The World's Smallest Political Quiz come to mind. I'd be interested to see how the more active posters around here would measure up.

The point still rings true however. I don't think it does. If you're going to define people by a single "hot button" issue that has no middle ground, then perhaps there are no moderates... but people are much more complex. From a political standpoint, we are the sum of our views. I have opposed our going to Iraq from the start. I think Bush has done a poor job as our president. I think we should take care of our environment. I doubt you'll find anyone I've discussed politics with, who would describe me as a Liberal.

Its very obvious you really do NOT know me or the issues I have posted on.. BUT I guess with all the far right posters on here.. ANYONE who does not agree with them is a far lefty.. Then again anyone who supporta all the far right crap that has been rampant since 2001 I guess you feel is a moderate I bet nobody saw that coming.

You and the woman should honestly look at the pros and cons of each possible scenario. Consider how you will feel about the path you choose now, as well as 5 or 10 years down the road. If you're spiritual, pray for guidance. Hopefully, you will choose a path that is acceptable to both of you. Good luck.

That I think "you cant go any faster than 120 MPH"? Or were you not talking about me?