Sam Adams

Our border is as porous as a colander, they made it across the same way the rest do

LadyC: Could you offer some sort support for these things? Sounds a lot like a right wing fantasy to me. I kept up with the events while they were happening and never saw any such things as the Obama administration loading them on planes in one country and dropping them off here. I am sure you have some legitimate sources for this.

LadyC: Two things, First,you cannot logically remove the "flood" from the overall problems. Second, we have law/rule saying we won't deport children from certain dangerous areas. Then we have a border enforcement that has a high focus on catching people once they cross the border. Put those two together and you are asking for a flood. You tell me LadyC: how did Obama make all those kids come here?

Winding down or warming up

LadyC: I hold the entire system responsible, this is not a problem that started with or got worse with Obama. First, our elected officials for the last few decades have refused to do anything to fix the problem with our immigrantion system. This is because of... Second, our business continue to hire illegal immigrants and big businesses owns and controls both parties, so they (our politicians) will never do more than talk. Third: we the consumers are responsible because we want cheap lettuce, apples and such. Let the price of produce double and there will be riots in the streets. Fourth: our laws tell certain groups "make it on to our land and we will let you stay", then design out border control around catching them once they are here. Stupid system yields stupid results.

Let me rephrase...the president does not have the ability or the means to flood his own borders, even if for some reason he wanted to.

I believe it is outside of the power of a president to flood the borders of his own country.

No, he didn't. There is no way for a president to do such a thing.

just a question here, could it also be a result of obama flooding the border with unvaccinated illegal children last summer? No it could not since there is no way for a president to flood a border with anyone.

As we discuss this topic I have a friend whose 1 year old is in the hospital with a possible case if measles. This young man was born with a heart defect and just had a heart cath done this past week. The measles could very well be more than his little body can handle. There have been more cases of measles in Jan than all of 2013 and more than 7 of the previous 10 years combined. This is the result of people who take the word of some internet site or TV star vice trained professionals.

And for the most part they are just that, stories. You should be far more worried every time she gets in a car or a school bus or walks across the street. Each of those is infinitely more dangerous than a vaccine.

So, now almost all the major news sources have turned the issue of vaccines into a political issue. This is the worst thing that could happen because now people will take sides based on what their party says, or for many people they will just take the opposite side of what the "evil" other party says. Forget the science, forget the medical experts, once something becomes politial all logic is null and void. One example: Vaccination debate spills over into 2016 White House race http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/03/chris-christie-rand-paul-under-fire-for-vaccine-remarks/

You: Nothing can be done, the media is a private enterprise and can report with any slant they wish. The best one can do is get their information from multiple source from as many different perspectives as possible.

Shiloh: You are an interesting fellow, that is for sure. You claim not to use hyperbole and then the whole paragraph following it is nothing but hyperbole. Again, the President does not offer food stamps to anyone. The eligibility rules are set by Congress or state houses. The President has NOTHING to do with it, no matter who the president is. As for homosexuals, there will never be another president that comes out and condemns homosexuality and I doubt there will ever even be on that is against gay marriage.

I will ignore the hyperbole and deal with things that we can quantify. Gay marriage was not an issue in the 1970 but Carter today supports gay marriage so there is no reason to believe he would not have when president. The president, no matter who it is, does not add people to the government assistance. Those rules are set by either the US Congress or by the state houses. The number of people on government assistance under Obama has followed the same trajectory as we have seen for the last 25 years. This is not an Obama problem, this has been a growing problem since the days of Reagan. 75% of government money going to people goes to people over the age of 65 or are disabled and is written into laws that the president has no control over at all. Debt under Carter grew 43% so far under Obama 53%, so Obama has been worse than Carter on that one, though both pale in comparison to two of the last conservatives we have had in the White House. Under Reagan it grew a whopping 186% and though he tried GW could not catch him and only got to 101%.

Oakwood: I am going to bow out of this one, I have already said things to another poster I guess I should not have and I cannot go any further with you using such broad and biased statements. I was going to reply to your points, but when I got to the line "The left is incapable..." I knew it was just a waste of both of our times. Have a great evening/morning.

Sorry but as bad as Obama is, he is not in the same league as Carter, no matter how one revises history.

I too have moved along the political spectrum but instead of going from one extreme to the other like you have I have moved from far right to the middle. The definitions have changed because society has changed, and more importantly, grown. What works in a small homogenous group of like minded people will not in a group of 300,000,000 diverse people. Both the far right and the far left are about controlling things to make society fit your point of view. That just won't work anymore, too many people with too many views

OakWood: Right and left are political perspectives that evolve over time, neither hold the patent on truth. Either taken to the extreme would be catastrophically bad for this country or any other to rule the realm

As one standing firmly in the middle politically speaking, I find a slant to the left, but not near to the magnitude you speak of. But of course, the further you are to the right, the further everything else look to the left.

I get the point, but it is really a lose/lose situation for Obama. I am no fan of Obama, I put him 2nd worst president, though tied worth GW, behind Carter. But no matter what he had done folks like yourself would have criticized him, either he does not care enough or he is just grandstanding for the camera.

The further to the left or right one is the more middle of the road things look biased. The data does not support CNN being terrible biased, they are more "populous" outlet, trying to stay up with what is accepted by the country. I find it telling that to you Fox has its "failings" but you don't label them as biased. But you are right about who Fox gives jobs to, most disgraced politicians are not young, sexy women who don't mind showing off their legs and other body parts.

We would never know if they did. The obsession over and reporting of such things is purely an American phenomenon

The history of the Textus Receptus is enough for me to doubt it is the best way to go. Using multiple manuscripts to compare and contrast is better than using one man's hasty translation to Greek. I personally use the ESV and the NASB for basic reading. The computer and portable devices have made the days of needing a single copy of the Bible obsolete. Now in the click of a button I can see what 5 different version have to say and why. More knowledge is always a good thing.

It was suggested by another person on the forum that I start a new thread on the topic of media bias. This thread came about because CNN was mentioned as being "the most biased" out there. I disagree with this view and find CNN to be fairly neutral in the grand scheme of things. I would like to start off with a study published in the Behavioral Research Methods Journal. Using a text analysis software a group compared 12 months worth of transcripts from the 3 main 24 hour news sources...Fox, MSNBC and CNN. The results were as one would expect, Fox was found to have a conservative bias, MSNBC a liberal bias and CNN fell "squarely" in the middle of these two. I am having trouble inserting the link but if you google "Measuring Political bias of network new" you will find the study. More to follow: