Axxman

Christian in name only.

Just to clarify...I respect your reasons for believing your version. I'm not certain that this thread is the appropriate place to discuss the various opinions and theories on the flood. this thread is about the discovery of a wooden structure on a mountain. I was more responding because in successive posts a member was called a CINO (not by you), then the next post was you making the case against a localized flood. I was more tossing out the idea that just because people have differing ways of viewing it...doesn't necessarily make them wrong or a CINO. In hindsight, I should have responded to the other post. Sorry if you thought I was picking a fight with you, or offended you.

Haha...i was thinking the same thing! There were already some groups on the news complaining that burning the oil would be bad for the environment..

Much of the oceans natural seepage isn't spread out over the entire ocean. In fact, I was reading last night that the Gulf of Mexico alone seeps about 140,000 metric tons by itself each year (some estimates went as high as 200 metric tons a year.) This leak is adding about 165 tons a day to that total (48,000 gallons a day)...i won't pretend thats nothing...but at that rate it would take 2.5 years to match the yearly average of 140,000 metric tons in the Gulf. BTW...I'm not trying to be overly argumentative with you. I'm just kinda finding the topic of natural oil seepage interesting.

The story of the Flood is a perfect example of when "all" doesn't always mean "all"...and "earth" doesn't mean the whole globe. I don't blame people for taking a literal English version translation of the flood...they are within their rights to have faith in that. (Just like I don't blame people for believing that man lived for hundreds of years, by taking a literal english view of the bible.) However, others shouldn't be blamed for taking a more academic and realistic view of the passages. You quoted my post, yet I fail to see how your post addresses mine? I'm sorry.. I was just saying that you have a version of the flood in which you believe "all' the world was flooded, and "all" the animals were taken...and that is fine and understandable. But for some of us, we have a different view based on our studies that "all" doesn't always mean everything in the world.

Totally disagree! The people in the news making those accusations have a complete disregard for history. There is simply no comparison between this new law and the Jim Crow laws, or the nazi's. This new law is designed to combat people breaking the law! I agree with Jeb Bush that the law has "unintended consequences," but the rhetoric and ridiculous comparisons by liberals to the civil rights era and nazi germany are completely dishonest.

Wow...so you do admit that race is an issue. Honestly...you have a van full of white American citizens, and a van full of latino American citizens pulled over for speeding...which one is is more likely to be asked for proof of citizenship under this new law? You want to be intellectually honest...here is your chance.

Ummm...I support this law. I have plainly stated that I agree with the components of the law, I support the Governor, and I agree with the issues that made this law happen. I have some reservations about the racial aspects of how this new law will be enforced...but even then I acknowledged that it was based on the fact that NOBODY has yet received any training on how to apply this new law. I do wish Arizona would enact laws that specifically address illegal immigration. This law does NOTHING to seal the border and thats what we need. Yes, its better than nothing I guess...but in reality it does nothing to curb the real problem and that is the open border. Like I said before, "This law basically acknowledges that we are letting them in, we can't to stop them, so lets just target everyone (American citizens included)." I am not trying to be the "last word" on any subject...I have been pretty unbiased on this particular subject and overall supportive of the idea behind this new law. One of the reasons I support this law is because of Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu...he supports it and he has been on the frontlines of this issue calling for federal help and troops to the border...and a continuation of the border fence (which Obama suspended.) I agree ALOT with Sheriff Babeu. You should know that the Sheriff of our county is against the law and has gone on record saying he will not enforce it in our county (obviously I have issues with that too.) I know many that are on both sides of this issue. I also happen to know that many police chiefs, and county sheriffs are against this law. The Association for Arizona Chiefs of Police is against it too.

Hey...I totally agree with you. I've seen my fair share of negative issues concerning illegals too. Which is why I support the intent of this law...and I support our Governor! The best thing Obama ever did for the State of Arizona is take Janet Napolitano away. Everything you mentioned is all parts of why we need the Feds to step up and do something to secure our borders. Thats the real issue. However, even with my support, I must wonder about the issue of race and how it plays into this. There is NO DOUBT that this law focuses on one race in particular...and even your comments on mexicans and "mexifornia"...indicates that you acknowledge that this law is directed at a specific race of people. I have a bit of a hard time with that.

I just wanna say...those pictures are kool!!! but...I don't even know how to pronounce the title of this thread so I'll leave it you smart folks. Thanks Neb! You always have the coolest pics of Gods creation...luv it!

Okay...you didn't really answer the question...but that was a humorous reply. Got a laugh outta me

I doubt it. All it does is allow police officers to do their job better. How many law enforcement training sessions have you been to? I've been to dozens and I've specifically been to many that dealt with instruction on new laws and how to implement them.

Okay...after viewing the pictures I am pretty sure they found my granny's shed in the mountains West Virginia.

The thing to note is that this is a huge amount in a smaller space. The damage isn't just environmental wacko stuff. It's like when Mt. St. Helen's errupted - humongous ecological damage and death. The only difference is one was man-made, the other not. And what happens when the oil gets to the beaches? This is a huge economic set-back - from anyone involved in the fisheries to tourism to *gulp* gas prices. Gods creation can handle it, just like it did Mt St. Helens. This "leak" would have to spill for 20 years to equal the amount of natural oil secretion into the ocean every year (600,000 metric tons). My point is, "Yeah, it stinks...especially for the people affected, but lets not play into the hands of those who would never let a good crisis go to waste." I suspect that plenty of people will benefit from this "disaster"...both financially and ideologically.

Yeah, I always hate reading about the families (especially the kids) left behind. Its soooo sad. I had to sift through 20 articles on the poor fishes and birds before I found one that discussed the details of the men who are missing...thats ridiculous to me. Oh man! Shrimp too?!? You are winning me over to the wildlife side of this a bit. I do hope things work out alright for the people caught up in this. I tend to care alot more about how these things affect the people.

Racial profiling is wrong. I was responding to the comment that the risk of racial profiling would be worth it. I have yet to receive the training that Gov. Brewer has spoken of (neither have you) so it would be hard for me to comment on exactly how the law changes will affect law enforcement. It is my suspicion, and that of most of my co-workers, that we will be trained in how to expand our definitions of "questionable" and "suspicious" in a legal sense. Thats how most of these law changes and definitions work.

There are natural oil seeps all over the globe that introduce 600,000 metric tons of oil into the ocean every year. Some, like the one in Santa Barbara California leave huge oil slicks in the ocean and on the beaches...naturally. This little drip is no disaster in reality, it just means we will have 650,000 metric tons of oil in the ocean this year. I've heard more about the wildlife that will die than I have about the men who died. What happened to the families is a tragedy, and a disaster. Oil leaking and some fish or birds dying...not so much. I am somewhat concerned about the oyster farms...but that is purely selfish.

The story of the Flood is a perfect example of when "all" doesn't always mean "all"...and "earth" doesn't mean the whole globe. I don't blame people for taking a literal English version translation of the flood...they are within their rights to have faith in that. (Just like I don't blame people for believing that man lived for hundreds of years, by taking a literal english view of the bible.) However, others shouldn't be blamed for taking a more academic and realistic view of the passages.

Like I said, I'm on both sides of this issue. It would be great to see the DOJ start enforcing the laws or immigration reform without amnesty...but I don't see how this law accomplishes that. I don't think it is worth the risk of violating the rights of citizens either. Maybe I'm just not seeing how you think this law will accomplish what you think it will... The spirit and letter of the law is aimed at Latino's. You may be right about more illegals from Asia and Europe being in the U.S....but here in Arizona...its Latinos. Nobody I know is foolish enough to believe otherwise. Nobody I know thinks that Europeans and Asians are going to be routinely asked to provide proof of citizenship. This is directly aimed at a specific race of people. Well, thats tricky. Apparently, its the idea of a State passing laws that are in the jurisdiction of the Federal gov't. However, I think we both agree that the federal gov't hasn't done anything worth mentioning on illegal immigrants...so maybe the state needs to do something. I have no real problems with that. As I've said from the get-go, my only real beef is with the idea of passing a law that targets a group of people based on their race. Being able to detain and question people solely because of their skin color seems inherently wrong to me. I did read one opinion that said Arizona intentionally passed the law, knowing full well that it would be a hot-button issue that would upset people, simply to force the Fed gov't into action. That seems a bit far-fetched, but I would be okay with it.

Obama, on his acceptance of Christ: "What was intellectual and what was emotional joined, and the belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, that through him we could achieve eternal life." He may be a mess theologically...but it sounds like he nailed that one.

SO if Obama steps all over the Constitution its bad... but its okay to disregard the constitution if it suits our needs? I disagree.

Yes, but most of them didn't expect us to learn their language or follow their traditions. It's a whole different story today. True, and I agree that it annoys me at times. However, America has been multi-lingual from its inception. There is no doubt that English is the dominant language of the U.S., but there is no constitutional requirement (or limitations) on what languages can be spoken. Free speech encompasses all languages. My point was...although it annoys me at times...I recognize that they are within their rights. I would not wish to see laws enacted against their race simply because I am overwhelmed by the influence of their culture.

I am on BOTH sides of this issue. I live in Arizona...pretty close to the border. I do not understand half of the passing conversations I overhear in the grocery store. I cannot read half of the billboards, or advertisments along the road. Half of the ads in the newspaper are in a foreign language. I am denied numerous job opportunites and advancements because I refuse to learn the language of another country. I could go on...but you get the point. I am annoyed by the loss of American culture in my city. Unfortunately...there is nothing constitutionally wrong with the above listed issues I have with immigration. Many cultures have come to America and brought their cultures and traditions with them. The one thing that I do have a problem with in this law...it is directed at a specific race of people. I understand why the law was made, I understand the issues very well and agree with the vast majority of the issues that brought this law forth. I cannot agree with the concept that people who are hispanic looking are the targets of this law...and pretty much nobody else. They have talked alot about the 'training' that officers will receive to avoid profiling...but...what does that mean? Its not like they are going to target caucasions to keep things fair. This law targets ONE race, or people who appear to be of that race. I have a problem with laws that target individual races...it simply doesn't feel right in America. I would be MUCH happier if Arizona gov't (and federal gov't) started passing common sense laws that attacked the problem on the frontlines...at the border! This law basically acknowledges that we are letting them in, we are not going to stop them, so lets just target everyone (American citizens included) who look like them.

Problem is...I agree with Yod's assertions that Obama is/has not acted in a way that I approve of...and I certainly have alot of questions. Unfortunately, not being able to see his birth certificate...doesn't make him evil. Being aligned with the UN...doesn't make him evil. Not releasing his college info...does not make him evil. I want to know the truth of these questions as much as the next guy. It would be phenominal for Obama's Presidency to be called into question over something so shocking as a foreign birth...I would love that! It would likely undermine the Democratic Party for years. It doesn't make him evil or satanic...or a non-christian.