O'Dannyboy

There are few people, if any, these days who can use the color of their skin as an excuse as to why they fail or succeed. Those days are gone. There are now hundreds of different scholarships and grants available to minority students. They don't have to compete with caucasions for these. But the caucasions have to compete against everyone for those scholarships they are eligable for. It's a double standard and you know it. The color of ones skin is NOT what determines their level of success. Just axe all da rappers. Education is the key but the whole hip hop culture advocates rebelion and fighting the system. In their efforts to stand apart they are willfully rejecting the very system they hoped to succeed in. Instead of adjutsing to the business world and trying to meet it half way they would rather blame it on the color of their skin. There are many successful men and women of multiple ethnicities in our nation and I doubt you would find many who agree with you. It's not not others view the color of their skin thats holding them back, it's their own. Until they first learn to look passed their own skin will they be able to accept the fact that noone else sees it either. The very idea that one is being descriminated against calls to question that persons own racial issues. I knew a business owner who resisted hiring black people. The reason, he explained, was that these days if he had to fire one, for whatever reason, the chance was always there that they would sue based on descrimination. It wouldn't have mattered how poor the employees performance was only that he was black and the rest of the employees were white. Descimination law suits have become a sore spot for small business owners because they never know which employee will be the next to sue them. I think this is one reason they created the LLC. To many small business owners got taken to the cleaners because one employee fealt they were dismissed based on color rather than performance. You see what I am saying? They are their own problem just by expecting everyone to be as color sensitive as the themselves are.

I'm still waiting.

What else would you expect from this moron. Perhaps we should also allow astrology, alchemy etc to be taught in science classes. You make a very good point. The sad things is that Darwins theory is just that, a theory. Their teaching it in school as fact only indicates the governments willingness to program rather than educate. For all intents and purposes, a scientific theory is not just an idea, its a fact until proven otherwise by empirical evidence and observation. Evolution is so universally accepted in science that it is one of the two fundamental laws of biology. A theory is a mere possibilty and is NOT FACT. Would you conclude that since there are millions of people that believe the Koran to be truth that it must "in fact" be the truth? I mean they have centuries of records and artifacts and evidence supporting their claim. Who was it that said "believe nothing you hear and half of what you see"? The evolution theory has countless holes in it and has yet to be proven as fact. The idea they would teach it in school , as such, is a betrayal. The only reason they chose to teach evolution rather than creationism is because creationism comes from the Bible and the seperation of church and state prevents them from endorsing any religions beliefs and so they rely on scientists to determine their reality and that of our children.

Here's the article I saw an advertisement while channel hopping and it really upset me. The BET channel will be doing a "series" of interviews with presidential candidates Obama and Clinton, where they will be asking "whats in it for us?". I want to know why they feel they must get something out of it above and beyond what the rest of us will get. In all the efforts made to curb racism in our country there are still entities such as the BET and NAACP whose whole purpose centers on their race. If they want to be treated like the rest of us then doesn't it make sense that they too should ignore the color of peoples skin, including their own? I find it sadening that these groups claim to champion the cause of the black people when in fact they are perpetuating the problem by highlighting their differences rather than those things we have in common. Another thing that is disapointing is that BET has chosen to exclude the republican candidates and is focussing on the democratic candidates only. So while they seek to find out whats in it for the black people they only care to query the political party who they know they can count on for political promises/favors based on their race. It's sad that in this war on racism the biggest enemies are the ones who pose as their representatives, like Al Sharpton. I only pray that an increasing number of people in the black community choose to ignore people and groups such as this as they are the ones who prolong the illness that is racism.

What else would you expect from this moron. Perhaps we should also allow astrology, alchemy etc to be taught in science classes. You make a very good point. The sad things is that Darwins theory is just that, a theory. Their teaching it in school as fact only indicates the governments willingness to program rather than educate.

It's the same old song and dance. It's always Israels fault. If Israel sat on it's hands for 6 months and did not retaliate the rockets would continue to come and it would STILL be Israels fault somehow. Perhaps if the Palestinian people stopped encouraging this behavior it might just stop. There is no honor in what they are doing and perhaps if they took the high road for a change they might just find the road to peace.

this is true. where we go wrong as a country is when we put church into government. you have to think of it full circle and not just the government in the church. Give me one example where "church" in OUR government has been a bad thing. Though the leaders that wrote our constitution may not have all been Christians, the societies they were born and raised in were and that influence is undeniable when one reads it. Our nation, the U.S.A, is and has been a majority Christian nation since it was founded. It's only natural, as Christians, that we wish not to see that influence watered down by secular beliefs. If you believe what the Bible says then IT is the most trustworthy source of wisdom in existence and we should expect our leaders to put the same amount of faith in it as well. To say that Faith in God has no place in Government is like saying that blind men make the best surgeons. If our leaders do not believe in a power greater then themselves or the government they serve then how can they possibly avoid the power trip? The reason our country is in this condition is, in part, due to politicians who worship the government. As part of that government they have come to worship they see themselves being above the people and the people no longer mean as much to them as the government does. You see what I mean? A secular government exists only for itself and it's members and NOT for the people. Sadly, history has proven that men of power will always want more and governments have always managed to put themselves first.

I guess its all in ones perspective. I am not sure what McCain would have in common with Ted Kennedy. There voting records are like night and day. Romney is the one that was right in line with Ted Kennedy until Romney decided he was going to run for president, and then, rather miraculously, he changed his views on virtually every single issue. I agree with you here. I don't like Romney at all. He has been attacking anyone who gets in his way and then uses the excuse that it's just politics. Huckaby has been making it a point to lead by example and not be dragged in to the mud slinging. So far Huckabee is my favorite. ALL the others are too liberal. Fred Thompson doesn't seem to stand a chance but I do like him also. the only other that has caught my eye is Ron Paul. I like where he stands on the major issues as well.

I don't like him because of where he stands on some important issues. I could care less about "party line" where selecting a president is concerned. And YES, to me he has that shifty, underhanded LOOK about him. I am not saying he IS shifty and underhanded, only that he doesn't LOOK trustworthy.

Is Iowa a swing state or something? I can't imagine anyone with any sense liking him. As if his voting record isn't bad enough I think he has a shifty underhanded look about him. I simply don't trust the man.

Heres my opinion. I believe it is being interpreted incorrectly. The first word being misconstrued is "respecting". I interpret this word to mean regarding and not referring to any preferential treatment. The next phrase that is taken out of context is "an establishment of religion". "An establishment", in my mind, refers to a building or a particular religion. Had they meant to prevent the government from creating or establishing a religion they would have or should have said "the establishment of a religion". It also speaks of NOT prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. This means they they cannot stop us from saying ANYTHING offensive or not. The government has no right or authority to regulate what we can or can't say at all and any attempt to do so means that the people must vote to change it or not. The government also cannot prevent any group of people from assembling as long as the activity is a peaceful one even if it is to petition the government about grievances. I do not accept the concept that our forefathers wanted the government to be devoid of religious influence or the ethics and morality that the predominant religion at that time would have encouraged. Some people argue that the "establishment clause" was to prevent Rome from meddling in affairs of state. It's possible but I kinda doubt it. I believe the establishment clause was meant to create a buffer between church and state but not a wall as some would have it. Religion has its' role in proper governance and the state has a role in keeping religion in check. I believe this was part of the "checks and balances" to allow and promote a government "of the people, by the people and for the people...so help me God".

I wouldn't be surprised at all if a politician made such a motion/proposal. It only shows how ignorant this person was. He probably wouldn't be opposed to allowing a Muslim hold office even though they believe they will get 70, 80 or 99 virgins when they get to heaven if they "martyr" themselves. These secular people or atheists are unwitting pawns of Satan and they will learn their lesson the hard way if they don't open their eyes. Christians are the only people I know of that honestly want the best for everyone. It's the rest of the world that looks at us funny because we are not as selfish as they are and so there must be something wrong with us. We must remember that we are not part of the world and we must be the light for those who view life and death as an accident.

NOONE here has said we want a "real I.D." or that we support any proposals that would call for it. Non of us has said we want you or anyone else to have to show identification to buy groceries, gasoline or to cross the county line. You seem to find it acceptable that I.D. be required to drive or to by alcohol or to rent [R] rated movies but Heaven forbid that we require proper identification to vote. Is this true? I personally ONLY want to be able to trust that no non-citizen can vote simply because a small minority didn't want to be inconvenienced. If there is any disenfranchisement it's already taking place with the "lesser of two evils" mindset. I am 38 and I have voted in a total of two presidential elections. I'm not proud of it but I didn't like ANY of the candidates and so I didn't vote. Today voting could not be simpler and all I have to do is invest an hour or so waiting in line at the polls. I would have rather voted, as Richard Prior put it, for "non of thee above. Most people, as far as I'm concerned, refuse to vote because they don't like ANY of the candidates and not because they are lazy. It's that simple. You think our system of voting would be disenfranchising if we required proper identification FOR ALL but consider the risk the people of Iraq took to vote and then tell me how bad we have it. If Americans actually believed they could make a difference and they actually found a candidate they liked, they would be like the people of Iraq, willing to risk their very lives, and even the "disenfranchised" might be able to pull themselves away from the T.V. long enough vote. Of course your next argument will be that since so many people are already disenfranchised a "true I.D." would only make things worse. This is probably true. You want a cause worth fighting for? Instead of worrying about whether homeless people get to vote how about making it where we can all go to the polls and make sure that we aren't forced to vote for people we don't like and to choose between the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile the best we can do is make sure each of our votes counts and not have the our elections watered down with fraudulent votes.

While you may not agree, there are people out there who are not as honest as you claim to be. In a perfect world we could all be offended by people doubting what we say, but we all know this is not a perfect world. So are we to assume that every time someone asks you for your identification you become boligerant? Would you be happier if our government and businesses just took everyone at their word? In the face of rampant identity theft you would still rather that anyone who claims to be a U.S. citizen be allowed to vote? Perhaps I would like to vote more than once. Without proper identification I could claim to be Elvis Presley and if they dare to ask me for identification I should have the right to sue based on descrimination. Is that how it should work? I don't think so. In my opinion your argument is not based on logic but rather made for the sake of the argument itself. Requiring identification to vote is the only way to ensure that the person voting is who they say they are. A photo I.D. that is difficult to forge is the only way to ensure that the person is a U.S. citizen and second that they are who they claim to be to prevent them from voting more than once. Obviously the current voting process could be more secure and streamlined but it is propbably the best in the world. Look at it this way. At least you live in a country that lets you vote. Perhaps whatever the requirements or red tape it's still worth the effort. Oh wait. Is voting supposed to effortless?

Somehow I doubt it's the idea of not being able to find work that is holding them back. It's more likely that they fear for their lives should they be discovered to be Jews. I think if I felt my life was in danger my possessions would not be of great concern.

I can't help but think that despite their opposition to the I.D.s, if the Democrats lost the Presidential race they will be the first ones complaining about voter fraud. Don't get me wrong. Our entire political system needs revamp. Our leaders are content to let problems fester long enough to cobble together 3000 page bills that they can sneak their pork projects but somehow resist passing smaller bills that address specific problems, such as securing our southern border. Despite the disappointing performance of the President this is one thing he has done that I admire. He has not hesitated to call Congress and the Senate to task when it comes to lumping bills together for the purpose of disguising pet projects. Thats one of the greatest problems in our government today is that these pork barrel projects have become, in essence, political currency.

Someone please tell me HOW requiring proper identification is unconstitutional. In my mind requiring proper identification is no more unconstitutional than requiring a drivers license or automobile insurance. Heck, there are people who believe freedom of speech is unconstitutional even though it's IN the constitution. Some people seem to be under the delusion that the constitution guarantees our happiness rather than protect our right to it. In this article you can see some of the arguments and how desperate they are to accommodate the laziest of "would be" voters. It seems the biggest argument is that a law requiring photo I.D. would pose a "hardship" for elderly and poor. If the elderly are able enough to make it to the polls then they are able enough to get an I.D. If they are incapable of making it to the polls they can still file an absentee ballot like the rest of us. As for the "poor" excuse, it has already been proposed that the states could wave the fee for those who can't afford it and STILL they wind up shooting the new law down. It's been stated that this is a partisan issue. Democrats argue that the republicans are pushing for these laws because they hope to hinder the democratic voter base by making it harder for them to vote. All they can see is the affect on their numbers and not the real issue. The democrats were unsuccessful in pushing through an amnesty bill so in the mean time they will try to increase their power by winning more seats. The easiest way for them to do this is to encourage voter fraud. They are counting on the votes of illegal immigrants as well as the votes of those who are currently dependent on the government. What many democrats don't realize is when their leaders have tilted the balance in their favor they WILL pass amnesty without securing the border, they WILL push to socialize health care and they WILL raise taxes. No ifs, ands or buts about it. And that would only be the beginning.

I am saddened by this. She was a positive force in the region and Pro-American. She had nothing but good things to say about the U.S. and wanted only to start her country on the path to become like the U.S. Many have said that Islam and democracy do not mesh well and this only serves to reinforce that belief. I feel sorry for those people who live under such oppressive governments and when finally they find someone who would lead them to creating a better life, the forces of evil strike that leader down. But, somehow people like Castro, Hitler, Saddam and Putin manage to stay in power and have people who admire and follow them. Had Saddam not been removed he would, no doubt, still be in power and like his peers would still be maintaining power through propaganda, fear and violence.

Thats funny. I hope her supporters do just as she says.

This is a stupid question. It's not like they are requiring an I.D. to use the bathroom at the mall. It's voting! Voting is a constitutional right for United States Citizens. I believe you should have to prove your citizenship in order to vote in this country. You shouldn't necessarily have to prove your citizenship to drive here but you should be required to have a passport and a drivers license. They require you to prove your identity in order to immigrate here. they should also require you to prove you are not only a u.s. citizen but you should have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote. When you have illegal immigrants with multiple false I.D.s then the system has been compromised and needs to be improved.

If Iran had any sense they would pay to send the Jews away (safely). I know I would gladly pay to send illegal immigrants back home to stay and I don't even hate them. It just goes to show how Islam is a covert or kill religion. If they are not willing to assist, those who do not wish to be there, in leaving then they are truly a hateful bunch. It's no different when someone "invites" a guest to leave and opens the door for them. I would be happy to open the door to let someone, that I disliked, leave. It's only if I like you that I would lament your leaving and I would still open the door for you.

You have to read this article carefully. "Gunfire had broken out over the installation of public Christmas decorations." After which this prominent Hindu leader was attacked on his way to the city. In response to this attack the Hindu proceeded to burn the decorated houses and the local churches. I have no doubts that it will be twisted to look like it was the Christians fault when all they did was decorate. The Anti-Christian "sentiment" is getting stronger and stronger it seems.

I don't think the Israelis have a problem with a Palestinian state. They just don't care to have one on their soil. If the Egyptians or Jordan or any Islamic state want to give them land to create a state, I'm sure they would be all for it.

This wouldn't be the same Joshua that lead the people over the river Jordan would it? The Joshua that took over leadership from Moses?

One of my favorites is Gloria. in excelsis deo!