O'Dannyboy

Easy with the insinuations. All who have interjected have agreed that Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence. However, Islam, according to the Quran, does more than justify violence, it demands it. The Bible does not. Why then do you insist on making such comparisons? Without a doubt the Catholic Church has behaved badly over the centuries. Even so they were not acting according to the Bible's teachings but according to the will of the Papacy. One thing you will find common among both groups is that both the Imams of today and the Papcy of yesteryear is that they ensured their domination through influence by keeping the masses illiterate. It's because of illiteracy that these followers have/had been so easily manipulated. Regardless, when making these arguments lets try to put less focus on the behavior of the leaders and followers and more focus on the teachings.

And obviously the most unabashedly patient political group. It's for this reason we have been marginalized and our laws changed to appease the minority. We need to find our voice or be forced to watch our nation crumble around us.

Murderous violence is not something that Muslims have a monopoly on, of course. See here and here and here. Certainly Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence. Violence existed among men long before the advent of Islam. The story of Cain and Able is a prime example. The difference, however, is that Islam advocates proactive violence. While not all Muslims are violent it seems a very large number of them are passive aggressive and tend to praise these acts of violence. Their own actions tend to encourage this behavior and so none can be completely trusted to desire peace.

Another fine example of how tolerant and loving Islam is.

As far as I am concerned the constitution guarantees I can say what I like (provided I'm not giving away national secrets) and it shouldn't be considered a crime. That being said we really should say and do everything with love and respect. We do not condemn sinners but should without a doubt condemn the sin. We should not shame or presume to chastise those who sin but rather show them the error of their ways and be salt and light. Those who are more mature in their walk may seek to associate for a longer time as they are less likely to stumble but for those of us who are less mature I believe we are to remove ourselves from such associations. To come out and be separate.

I've heard this man's name mentioned before and have read many differing theories regarding him. One should definitely become familiar with him. As it is I have simply been keeping my ear to the tracks regarding his dealings. As it is the most important thing I am watching for is the treaty with Israel. Almost everything else seems to hinge on that one thing. How Mr Solana plays into that I don't quite know. Considering how little we have heard about him it's entirely possible. You know, moving and working behind the scenes. As it is I've become somewhat distracted by what Obama and his accomplices are trying to do and are doing.

I'm with you on this one. The living word cannot be altered. These texts that have been inspired, however, can be and have been to suit the needs of those who question God's judgment. Having done so there seem to be others who seek to "correct" these "distortions" by creating yet another "translation". It is definitely silliness.

Where do you suppose he expects the Israelis to live then?

Fundamentally I have to agree. Nevertheless, these wars, however unnecessary they may have been, are not expected to go on indefinitely. Conversely, the "reform" they are proposing will be next to impossible to roll back once it's passed, so we'd better get it right the first time. Haste make for waste. You have only been hearing, or at least have focused on, only one part of the argument. It's never been about the money so much as the timing. No one is saying we don't need or want real health care reform. Most have simply been saying that perhaps in the midst of an recession/depression is not the best time. Sadly there are those in Washington that view such troubled times or "crises" as opportunities. The second argument has been about whether the government should take it over or allow a public option thereby providing a back door for a future takeover. Considering how the government has failed to run ANY program efficiently or effectively many of us are not so eager to hand our health care over to the government. You know. The same government that dragged us into a war with Iraq over phantom weapons of mass destruction. The same government that decided to take the war to the terrorists rather than fight them on American soil. A war chasing cockroaches in foreign lands. Of course here is where we have to to question whether all these billions of dollars wouldn't have been better spent on securing the borders, enforcing immigration laws already in place, and sending millions of illegals back where they came from. Basically we don't want the government spending us into oblivion. Similarly we don't want the government growing too big to manage. Ours is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. When the will and welfare of the people cease being the governments primary motivation it becomes, from that point, a liability. Our government doesn't need more legislation or more money. It needs to check itself and look inward at what it can fix. As many others have echoed lately. "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem".

The bot neglected to mention that this particular bill being touted by Pelosi has the "government/public option" in it. They are more concerned with the government getting into the health insurance business than they are the price tag, to be sure. The only reason they even bother to mention any dollar figures is because that's what they believe the public is most concerned about. Meanwhile they continue to chase their dream of government takeover/expansion in the form of a government program designed to control costs by allowing the government to "compete" with the rest of the industry.

Can they not desalinize the sea water? Israel does still have coastal area/access don't they?

Blessings, O'Dannyboy Personally, I think Obama's relationship with the controlled media is pretty much exposed already. Prior to his election and during the campaign, he had Fox News under his thumb for the most part with the rest of the talking heads, but because Fox News won't play along with him anymore, exposed ACORN's pimps and prostitution ring with tapes, when all the other media ignored it, he says they are no longer a news source. Now he and his administration are panicking and what else can they do but try to demonize and destroy the messenger in an effort to direct the attention from what they are trying to do themselves. Nikki Well for some of it was pretty obvious but there are sure to be others who were not aware that are now thanks this ladies statements. More importantly thanks to those who fished them out of the abyss. What's more is that many of us believed the media has been willing accomplices but in light of this new information it appears they have been bullied into compliance.

Don't they desalinize the sea water? Have they stopped doing so over the danger of poisoning or something?

Perhaps Obama has some ailment we don't know about that requires, or will require, marijuana treatment.

Well, this comes as no surprise. So instead of being willful the news media organizations have been compliant. This being the case you can bet that the Obama administration continues to exercise this "absolute control" today. It's no wonder these "news" organizations continue to be so tight lipped and reluctant to report on anything that could offend Obama or his administration. We would do well to expose this relationship before the 2010 elections roll around and find that there are still people relying on these same media groups for their information. Interestingly FOX just reported today that nearly half of their audience are democrats and independents. Personally I believe this is entirely possible considering the number of contrary posts made in the comments sections of their web site.

Do you believe they are? Sounds to me like they simply see an opportunity to return balance to the government. Rather than confidence I would describe their attitudes as hopeful or optimistic.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568483...test=latestnews "Buying nuclear fuel from abroad does not mean Iran will stop its uranium enrichment activities inside the country," Ali Shirzadian, spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Iran's official IRNA news agency. Just what I was saying. They would simply use the third party material to accelerate their timetable.

yep, that's what it's all about, alright! in many states, they already HAVE the exact same benefits and "rights" as heterosexual married couples (as they should have, IMO), but yet it's not enough for them. Well. In their defense many of the "rights" they complain about are not the government's jurisdiction. But that's what confuses me about the constant badgering of the Federal government about policies adopted long ago by cities, counties and states and their various social programs all the way to insurance companies and health care facilities. Basically for them, getting their unions recognized as marriages is the short cut. But that's my point. They don't want to wait for society to eventually accept them. They will try and force us to agree with them even if only symbolically. Why the urgency? Basically it seems obvious it's not about the rights at all and everything to do with getting people to turn against and defy God's law so they can feel better about themselves and feel less dirty.

and there's the clear cut constitutional angle that BE said didn't exist. the will of the people. good one o'dannyboy!! The will of the people was about 17% in favour of interracial marriage when the courts legalized it due to it being unconstitutional. Will of the people doesn't equal constitutionality. I beg to differ. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The declaration of independence reads " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" In a nutshell, the Constitution and our government both derive their powers from the consent of "the governed". i.e. people/citizens. Be that as it may, I agree that the government preventing anyone from marrying would be contrary to the spirit of the constitution or "unconstitutional". However, that is NOT what is happening. The government is not preventing them from getting married. Remember what I said earlier. The government does not create marriages. It only sanctions them. So what you have is the government withholding benefits to couples who are not "legally" married. But it's not just the government so the government alone cannot fix it. Society, dating back to Adam and Eve, has recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman. These exclusions, allowances, provisions, permissions, protections, benefits and policies or "rights" have been accumulating and extended to married couples over 250+ years of U.S. history. Dare I say many of these social allowances were extended to married couples long before the founding of the U.S. Not by government, but by society. Now the LGBT "community" seeks to undermine the will of the people in an end run via the legal system. What they have done is essentially spat in the face of the people but whats worse is they continue to act, not only contrary to, but in utter defiance of God's laws. In my opinion that's what it's all about. If they had all their "rights" handed to them in a nice tidy box with a bow labeled civil union they would still be wanting to have it called a marriage. Why? They want society to stand behind them and tell God he is wrong and they are right. In essence they want all of mankind to turn on God and reject his law. Remind you at all of a certain fallen angel and how he felt?

Personally I find it offensive that this state government, via it's judicial system, continues to question the will of the people. If there is any question as to how the majority of people feel about the issue then they should have another vote. This, however, is NOT a decision for the courts to make. That's how democracy works, like it or not. As for these "rights" to marriage and equal benefits they are mistaken. Those benefits (primarily financial) that have been extended to married couples were initially for the expressed purpose of encouraging procreation. They are not rights and the government was never mandated to extend them to anyone. Gay "rights" activists argue "Why deny those who are deeply in love with each other the right to pronounce before God and their country that they are prepared to commit to each other until death do they part?" This argument is a red herring. Homosexuals are not being prevented from "pronouncing" anything. If they with to make such proclamations before God and country they don't need a court of law or the members of any and all religions to witness the act either. If in fact they believe in a God then they certainly do not need the recognition of other faiths.

It is very frustrating to read such news. Israel continues to have to defend itself not only against hostile and violent enemies but against those who wouldn't know truth or fairness if it came up and gave them a hug. Despite know how close we are to the end I still find it hard to take joy in the events that have lead us to it. I weep that mankind is so full of itself and how naive they are to believe they would or could amount to anything of value without God's guidance. We are like the defiant child who threatens to run away only to walk a couple of blocks and cry and stomp their feet because they couldn't bully their parents into acquiescence. I am dumbfounded how like mankind is to that angel who thought himself equal to his creator. John 13:16 "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

In my mind the $250 check will amount to nothing more than a bribe in a time when his popularity among seniors is diminishing due to his health reform policies. From what I have been reading 3/4 of his trips have been to states that favored him during the election. Similarly the bulk of the moneys that he has pushed for have also been to those same areas.

Prayer is a private or cooperative thing. It does not make it a prayer just because they add the words "I pray".

Um. Absolutely not. In fact, it's people like him that caused me to resist receiving the word for so long. I'm definitely beginning to wonder how many people actually watched the cartoon in it's entirety. While they posed the scenario as a hypothetical it was still intended to ingrain in those who watched it a greater appreciation for the freedom that have. The characters in the cartoon, much like many today, are ready to sign away their freedom for the promise of higher wages, larger profits or less resistance from the voters but when they are given a glimpse of what life without freedom would be like they quickly change their tune.