Uncertain

There was never supposed to be an ice age, in the 70s time and Newsweek had competing articles based on the musings of a few meteorologist, it was never a position of mainstream science. The only real prediction of cooling from a scientist dealt with aerosols, which were then greatly reduced. So he may well had been right had people not responded correctly. I was taught that there was going to be an ice age in school. It was back in the 60s and early 70s. You must have went to a very lousy school, to teach what science didn't even put forth.

Let me see if I have this right...since you personally are not bothered by the lost freedoms, it is ok the are lost? First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

He can not abuse this power for more than 90 days unless congress lets him..... Do you understand that the office of the president has the power to declare a national emergency and set up the head of Homeland Security as the total dictator of this country for six months; and has had since the days of Ronald Regan...... and it has nothing to do with this act. if you want to worry about something worry about that. Concerning wire tapping, how did that harm you..... didn't harm me... These things you are speaking of are not a problem unless the government is going to take total power in the hands of just a very few people...... and if the military goes along with that, you and I are simply screwed for you can't fight the military we have today.... These tools are being set up for protection largely because we are such an open society. I agree with you that Obama is a danger to us all, but this act is not what he is using to harm us and the more time you spend on things of this nature the less you can convince people of what is ultimately going to bring us down. It harms you because it takes away an essential liberty, the right to privacy and the right to due process. I asked before, would you be ok with the government opening every piece of mail and examining the contents? What they are doing with phone calls and emails is no different. but there is military due process, you don't simply go away.... and they have to update congress on your status. Would I be OK with the government opening every piece of mail I get...... considering what I know about the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple of militia groups, I have much less trouble with that than you do...... do I like it, no I don't....... do I understand why they want to do it...... yes I do........ am I worried about them finding something about me that I don't want them to know..... no I am not worried for I am open to them about who I am and what I think...... I'm a born again patriotic Christian who has sworn an oath to defend the constitution...... but will I go against what Congress the President (good and bad) have set up legally according to the Supreme Court... no I will not do that. So, in the end you have gladly given up freedoms, which is what I said to start with, and you took issue with it. It is not about having something to hide, it is about what we will give up next in the name of safety. To quote Padme' "so, this is how liberty dies.....to thunderous applause". That is where I see us heading, the internal threats are much greater than the external.

Will you be so up on home grown terrorism being squashed when churches start getting the terrorists label based upon issues like same set marriage? get real, this act has nothing to do with things of that nature...... go back to the definition of who this pertains to. A pastor who refuses to marry gays is not an enemy combatant engaged in hostilities against the government. And for them to change that definition of the people that pertains to takes approval of congress. You are taking things way beyond context. Why do you trust congress any more than a president? And read what you posted above, they don't have to be an enemy combatant, just deemed to be providing aid or support. That is a very vague threshold.

He can not abuse this power for more than 90 days unless congress lets him..... Do you understand that the office of the president has the power to declare a national emergency and set up the head of Homeland Security as the total dictator of this country for six months; and has had since the days of Ronald Regan...... and it has nothing to do with this act. if you want to worry about something worry about that. Concerning wire tapping, how did that harm you..... didn't harm me... These things you are speaking of are not a problem unless the government is going to take total power in the hands of just a very few people...... and if the military goes along with that, you and I are simply screwed for you can't fight the military we have today.... These tools are being set up for protection largely because we are such an open society. I agree with you that Obama is a danger to us all, but this act is not what he is using to harm us and the more time you spend on things of this nature the less you can convince people of what is ultimately going to bring us down. It harms you because it takes away an essential liberty, the right to privacy and the right to due process. I asked before, would you be ok with the government opening every piece of mail and examining the contents? What they are doing with phone calls and emails is no different.

Will you be so up on home grown terrorism being squashed when churches start getting the terrorists label based upon issues like same sex marriage? Oh, and look up the quote about giving up liberties for safety. In the end the trade off is never worth it.

The position of the climate change theory is not that it is going destroy the world, that is nothing more than a strawman.

Fascinating, you think the current president wants to put the US under sharia law, yet trust him enough not to abuse this new power. This is the downfall of being so partisan, you can't see the forest for the trees. There was congressional oversight of wire tapping, and yet that went far beyond the reported scope and size. You have far more faith in elected party officials than I.

So Other one, did you get the chance to go read that section of the 2012 NDAA?

There was never supposed to be an ice age, in the 70s time and Newsweek had competing articles based on the musings of a few meteorologist, it was never a position of mainstream science. The only real prediction of cooling from a scientist dealt with aerosols, which were then greatly reduced. So he may well had been right had people not responded correctly.

You gave up the freedom of speech in that the government can label certain speech as promoting terrorism and they can label non-violent civil disobedience by citizens as an act of terror. You gave up the right to freedom from unreasonable searches by championing searches and wiretaps with out probable cause. You have given up the right to talk on the phone or send an email without the government listening or reading it. Would you be ok with the government opening all snail mail and reading it? Sec 1021 of the 2012 NDAA: It gives the right to detain "covered persons" pending disposition under the law of war. A covered person is anyone deemed to be aiding the enemy. Disposition (1) detention without trial until the end of hostilities. Look it up, it is all public record, and you fully support it.

I don't know if you're an American, or not, but I am. It's our nature to distrust the government and the judicial system. By 'uphold' I mean agree with most of the time. I personally do not. And of course we need a system of courts; that's not the issue. I am an American, and I think all in all our judicial/court system does a good job. It is an imperfect system, but the best one that I know of. Also, whether I agree or not is often inconsequential, I still have to follow their rulings. In the case of speech, I do agree their should be a possible consequence to what you say.

Each of those bills took away freedoms and privacy, if you are good with them you not only gladly gave up freedoms you have actively helped it happened. Yes, we have had NDAA since the 50s, but the 2012 one was the first one to give the executive branch permission to ignore the constitution, it gave the executive branch the power to lock anyone, including citizens, away indefinitely without a charge fled or a hearing offered. Basically Gitmo for citizens that have had the tag "terrorist" put on them. But why should you care, you can carry a pistol and go where you want. Besides, the executive branch would never misuse their power, would they. I am sure you have complete trust in Obama to do the right thing.

Has it occurred to you that might be the plan? Great excuse to strip away a lot of freedoms. Look at how much we gladly gave up after 9/11. WE????? GLADLY????? Yep we, as in the collective body of voters. And gladly as evidenced by us sending the same people back to Washington despite all they have taken from us. are you aware that not a single county voted for Obama, and our house and senate vote my wishes 95% of the time? So that WE does not include anyone I know here... and none of us are glad about anything.... we protest when and where we can. Both senators from Ok voted for the PATRIOT Act, as did every congressman. One Senator voted to extend it while the other abstained. Every member of the House voted to extend it. The senators were split on the 2012 NDAA, every member of the House voted for it. Every member of the House voted for wireless phone taping as did both senators. Need I go on?

Has it occurred to you that might be the plan? Great excuse to strip away a lot of freedoms. Look at how much we gladly gave up after 9/11. WE????? GLADLY????? Yep we, as in the collective body of voters. And gladly as evidenced by us sending the same people back to Washington despite all they have taken from us.

Actually, that isn't correct. The courts are bound to uphold Constitutional law....not to make laws. Activist judges have been bending things but it's our fault, we the people, for allowing them to get away with that. In my experience an activist judge is one that makes decisions you don't like, nothing more. In the case at hand I see nothing in the Constitution that would preclude a person being fired for what they said, Shiloh357 on the other hand does. So who other than the courts would decide such a thing? This is the sort of thing the courts exist for. Also incorrect. An activist judge makes or changes the law. The job of the judicial branch is to INTERPRET the law. It's unusual to see an American upholding the court system; kinda goes against the grain. Why would an American not uphold the court system? Without it we would be a lawless nation. Would you prefer we didn't have a court system?

Nobody ever complains when a judge makes a decision they agree with, but as soon as they don't the judge us an activist judge. It is just a buzz word the party leaders throw out to rile up the masses.

Why would love for a spouse ever not be unconditional? It's like when you say your vows you only mean to hold your side as long as you feel like your spouse is worthy of your love. The vows I remember seem to indicate unconditional to me. Marriage vows are a two sided covenant between two people, in order for the covenant to be valid both must uphold their side. I do not know about you but I knew my wife for a period of time before there were any feelings and even longer before there was love. That love was built upon who she was as a person. All of her traits are what caused me to love her in the way that a spouse loves the other. The love of spouses for each other is a unique love that is not shared by any other groups. It is different from the love I have for my child, that love is unconditional and was in existence prior to ever meeting my child. It was not and never will be based upon the actions of my child. I think part of your struggle is you do not understand that their are different kinds of love. The love God is speaking of is not the love of a man and a wife. I still love my former wife in the same manner I love my neighbor and everyone else in the world, but no longer is it the love it once was.

Humans are not perfect, thus our love will not be. I also don't believe the love for a spouse can ever be unconditional, it is not that sort of love. The only thing that comes close to unconditional love in humans is the live of a parent for a child.

Has it occurred to you that might be the plan? Great excuse to strip away a lot of freedoms. Look at how much we gladly gave up after 9/11.

You don't have a link do you, I would like to read it. Also, where do you get the 5% number from? What does the article consider "wealthier"

Are you aware that white women fall under the umbrella of Affirmative Action, and are in fact the largest beneficiaries of AA. Thus everything you have said could also apply to Palin. I base my view of her on listening to her talk over the years. Her knowledge of most things is superficial and even her vocabulary is very limited and she tends to try and use big words that she ends up misusing.

Those who inhabit the extreme edges of the political spectrum are thoroughly convinced anyone that does not agree with them is not only wrong but also evil and out to take away their freedoms and way of life. Sadly this group is growing, there are fewer moderate, reasonable thinkers each year. This is not by accident or random happenstance, it is by design. It is said that "united we stand" and this is accurate but also a united group is harder to control. The more divided we are the easier it is to control people and manipulate events and people to bring about a desired effect. This mass division is fueled by people who are getting stupidly rich off of playing their part. The Becks and Hannity and Colberts of the nation are the well paid pied pipers driving the wedge deeper and deeper. Too many people are happy to help them hammer. Sad to sit back and watch and not be able to do anything.

The thing about Hosea is that he married Gomer knowing what she was, she didn't suddenly change in the middle of the marriage. The person I loved and married was not the person I divorced, and it seems the case might be the same for you. Everything that I loved about her went away or changed so drastically it was essentially a new person. I didn't love her because of what she gave me, but because of who she was. Once she was no longer that person, the love went away. So this is basically saying love is just feelings? I think love is more . . . What then do you think love is in regards to humans? Actually. No clue. Used to think there is something very wrong with my head. Now I think in general most people don't know either. Just go with what you "feel". Point is, God sees us as unfaithful yet continues to draw us and desire a relationship with us. Can't see why. If this is too personal please tell me, but are you a parent? I ask because I believe God's love for us is closer to that of a parent for a child than a husband and wife. A parent's love is much more unconditional, it is in many ways a more pure love.

The thing about Hosea is that he married Gomer knowing what she was, she didn't suddenly change in the middle of the marriage. The person I loved and married was not the person I divorced, and it seems the case might be the same for you. Everything that I loved about her went away or changed so drastically it was essentially a new person. I didn't love her because of what she gave me, but because of who she was. Once she was no longer that person, the love went away. So this is basically saying love is just feelings? I think love is more . . . What then do you think love is in regards to humans?