Political Change and Correctness Can Destroy America

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Jul 5, 2004
13,399
1,706
245
The current political mantra seems to be the cry for “Change.” But what does this mean? Change to what? We voters need to be sure we know what is being promised before we step through the looking glass as Alice did.

Investor’s Business Daily asks “Is it a change from victory in Iraq to defeat, from low taxes to high and from prosperity to dependency?” Conservative Republicans like Romney, Thompson and Guiliani suggest “change” is getting rid of the Washington insiders who have been running the nation for years with much talk and little change. Yet, in New Hampshire, the voters selected McCain and Clinton, hardly any change there from the past. Sounds like our news anchors and newspaper reporters should be asking more questions instead of just reporting what the politicians say as the reporters dutifully record it or write it down! We voters need to insist on clear definitions of words before we capitulate to one side or the other.

Then there is the capitulation to “Political Correctness” where the Far Left preaches to us to never judge, always be tolerant (tolerant of what, they never say) and help them separate church and state as if this is a mandate from our Constitution. They even try to tie it in by reminding us this came from Thomas Jefferson, the main writer of “The Declaration of Independence” and one who had a strong influence on our Constitution.

But Jefferson never told us to include in any official document that we should separate church and state! The real story, as Paul Harvey likes to say, is that the Danbury Baptists were fearful that this new President was going to make them change their method of worship, which was controversial in his day, and so they wrote him asking him to address this. President Jefferson immediately wrote back to assure them. In that letter, he wrote,

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

How our Supreme Court legislated otherwise is reason enough for us to demand a President who will appoint and insist that all new Justices abide by the original Constitution and not try to either legislate or infer from unofficial documents or from European Constitutions that our beloved document of freedom has any different meaning!

Newt Gingrich said in his new DVD about his tour of Washington, D.C. , “There is no attack on American Culture more destructive or more dishonest than the relentless effort to drive God out of our public square!”

Past Democrat Presidents may have agreed with Gingrich. It was Harry S. Truman who said, “We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God.”

And it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt who claimed, “Rules are not necessarily sacred, but principles are!”

My favorite quote, though, comes from President Ronald Reagan who said, “ If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under!”

The coming 2008 election is the most important one we will ever face as we will be making the decision as to what kind of country we intend to leave for our children or grandchildren to inherit. Will it be a Godless, Socialist democracy with high taxes causing fewer jobs while those who do work will have to not only support their own families but also take care of those who refuse to work or are not legal citizens? Or will we leave them the great Republic Americans have been building since 1776 with freedom for all to pursue happiness as promised by our Constitution. Our nation is now teetering on a political cusp ready to slide down to the left or the right. Your 2008 votes will decide the future fate of this country and what those ready to inherit this nation will have to live with. Once the votes are counted, there will be no turning back. 2009 will start eight years of the following:

1. To maintain a nation under God or to continue to completely separate church and state, thus to maintain faith or move to being a secularist nation;

2. To stay as a Republic or be converted to a European-type Democracy;

3. To keep Capitalism or accept Socialism;

4. Keep lower taxes with more jobs or higher taxes with fewer jobs available as a result.;

5. To have a Constructional or a Legislative Supreme Court;

6. To continue our current emotional and political “Cultural War” or to, once again, unite as the true United States of America!


How you vote in 2008 will answer which of the above our next generation will inherit!


By Lee Ellis/MichNews.com
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19018.shtml
 
you've had your two presidential terms. Stop getting tears on the carpet just because this nation is tired of your 04 policy maker.
 
you've had your two presidential terms. Stop getting tears on the carpet just because this nation is tired of your 04 policy maker.
You tired of it? Me too. However, Bush is only a taste of what liberalism could really bring if the Dimwits win.
 
Look SE, you're party screwed up. They backed mr. bush who has been a terrible president. History proves that CHANGE is the only thing that's certain. Those who resist change are left behind. Prove to me that history tells us otherwise, or shut the hell up with you're sob story and childish whining about an election your party can no longer compete in.
 
Look SE, you're party screwed up. They backed mr. bush who has been a terrible president. History proves that CHANGE is the only thing that's certain. Those who resist change are left behind. Prove to me that history tells us otherwise, or shut the hell up with you're sob story and childish whining about an election your party can no longer compete in.

Yes, the Pubs did screw up...and they are paying for it today with the Party being in disarray.

Yes, CHANGE is always certain. That's why I think Obama's platform for CHANGE is bogus....anybody can claim that platform. He's an empty promise. "CHANGE" by itself does not mean a thing. Change can be good or bad.

Tell me exactly how Obama's or Hillary's CHANGE are going to be good for America?
 
The current political mantra seems to be the cry for “Change.” But what does this mean? Change to what? We voters need to be sure we know what is being promised before we step through the looking glass as Alice did.
Change from corruption like Bush and the Republicans who lost in the last election.

Investor’s Business Daily asks “Is it a change from victory in Iraq to defeat, from low taxes to high and from prosperity to dependency?”
Are we winning in Iraq? Who finally stated what the definition of victory in Iraq is? The Middle class still pays taxes so only the rich will be paying "high" taxes. Define prosperity...is it a recession or inflation?

Then there is the capitulation to “Political Correctness” where the Far Left preaches to us to never judge, always be tolerant (tolerant of what, they never say) and help them separate church and state as if this is a mandate from our Constitution. They even try to tie it in by reminding us this came from Thomas Jefferson, the main writer of “The Declaration of Independence” and one who had a strong influence on our Constitution.
What is wrong with be tolerant of other races, religions, political ideologies? Are the bullies of the world upset and demand to have their bigotry back? What a stupid argument.

But Jefferson never told us to include in any official document that we should separate church and state! The real story, as Paul Harvey likes to say, is that the Danbury Baptists were fearful that this new President was going to make them change their method of worship, which was controversial in his day, and so they wrote him asking him to address this. President Jefferson immediately wrote back to assure them. In that letter, he wrote,

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
You cannot have it both ways. If you want the state to not be involved with how you worship, you also cannot have the state involved with whether or not you worship. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. And this means that if I am secular or Buddhist or Jewish and the schools are saying a Christian prayer...this violates my Constitutional rights.

There is nothing with saying Merry Christmas if you are a private citizen or a private business, but government agencies cannot say Merry Christmas unless they are prepared to also say Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy EIN, etc.


How our Supreme Court legislated otherwise is reason enough for us to demand a President who will appoint and insist that all new Justices abide by the original Constitution and not try to either legislate or infer from unofficial documents or from European Constitutions that our beloved document of freedom has any different meaning!
Why, so Christians can infuse their ideologies into law and government agencies like education?

Newt Gingrich said in his new DVD about his tour of Washington, D.C. , “There is no attack on American Culture more destructive or more dishonest than the relentless effort to drive God out of our public square!”
Right, how can you attack non-Christians if you cannot pick them out of the crowd, like those who do not pray in school, or in court. Never mind that there are people who do not have the same beliefs as Christians, their feelings do not matter apparently. This is about domination and that is what Christianity has always been about.

Past Democrat Presidents may have agreed with Gingrich. It was Harry S. Truman who said, “We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God.”

And it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt who claimed, “Rules are not necessarily sacred, but principles are!”

My favorite quote, though, comes from President Ronald Reagan who said, “ If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under!”
Right, so better pray before the Evangelical Taliban starts patrolling the streets.

The coming 2008 election is the most important one we will ever face as we will be making the decision as to what kind of country we intend to leave for our children or grandchildren to inherit. Will it be a Godless, Socialist democracy with high taxes causing fewer jobs while those who do work will have to not only support their own families but also take care of those who refuse to work or are not legal citizens? Or will we leave them the great Republic Americans have been building since 1776 with freedom for all to pursue happiness as promised by our Constitution. Our nation is now teetering on a political cusp ready to slide down to the left or the right. Your 2008 votes will decide the future fate of this country and what those ready to inherit this nation will have to live with. Once the votes are counted, there will be no turning back.

What a bunch of bullshit. All of these evils that you denounce are brought to you by capitalism and the free market. Where have you been?
 
Taoman said:
Change from corruption like Bush and the Republicans who lost in the last election.
You mean like the slumlord corruption that Obama is associated with?

Taoman said:
Are we winning in Iraq? Who finally stated what the definition of victory in Iraq is? The Middle class still pays taxes so only the rich will be paying "high" taxes. Define prosperity...is it a recession or inflation?
According to the Patreus guidelines we are winning.
"Gouge the Rich!" is the liberal mantra...send the investors fleeing to other countries! That's really going to help America (sarcasm)
If you don't know then you shouldn't care.

What is wrong with be tolerant of other races, religions, political ideologies? Are the bullies of the world upset and demand to have their bigotry back? What a stupid argument.
"Toleration" is a liberal word. I don't have to be "tolerant" of any race or religion. I just can't legally discriminate against them in certain public situations. And where does it say I must be "tolerant" of all political ideologies?

Taoman said:
You cannot have it both ways. If you want the state to not be involved with how you worship, you also cannot have the state involved with whether or not you worship. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. And this means that if I am secular or Buddhist or Jewish and the schools are saying a Christian prayer...this violates my Constitutional rights.

There is nothing with saying Merry Christmas if you are a private citizen or a private business, but government agencies cannot say Merry Christmas unless they are prepared to also say Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy EIN, etc.
Whether I worship or how I worship are two different things entirely. Just because the government cannot tell me how to worship in the public square does not mean the government can tell me I can't worship in the public square.

Who told you freedom of religion is freedom from religion? Are you going to tell that soapbox preacher he can't preach in the park just because you can hear him?

If you're a secular slob then it is your perfect right to leave the room if those Christian crazies are praying. Government people can say Merry Christmas because Christmas is a national holiday set by the government...as opposed to the fake Kwanzaa holiday.

Taoman said:
Why, so Christians can infuse their ideologies into law and government agencies like education?
No, so secular slobs don't legislate from the bench and infuse their ideologies into law and government agencies like education.

Taoman said:
Right, how can you attack non-Christians if you cannot pick them out of the crowd, like those who do not pray in school, or in court. Never mind that there are people who do not have the same beliefs as Christians, their feelings do not matter apparently. This is about domination and that is what Christianity has always been about.

Our country was founded with a belief in a Higher Power from which come our rights. Think about it…and try not to let your animosity and hatred get in the way. Some taoist.

Taoman said:
Right, so better pray before the Evangelical Taliban starts patrolling the streets.
Oh, you mean like the "Evangelical Taliban" who were legally protesting a fag parade and who got thrown in the slammer by the Fag Taliban for exercising their right to free speech in the public square?

Taoman said:
What a bunch of bullshit. All of these evils that you denounce are brought to you by capitalism and the free market. Where have you been?
Higher taxes are the result of a free market? Control of your health care by the government is the result of a free market? Who's the one really full of bullshit here? Wanna try again?

Dr.Grump said:
You're HUGE or rhetoric, low on facts SE...
So give me some facts to counter my rhetoric.

Toro said:
ScreamingEagle, you seem to have a very low opinion of America if you think an election can "destroy America."
My opinion is getting lower when I look at the Democrats today. One must be ever-vigilant...our freedom can be taken from us if we are not.
 
You tired of it? Me too. However, Bush is only a taste of what liberalism could really bring if the Dimwits win.

well then why did you vote for him in 00 and 04? Like I said, don't blame me if that W sticker didn't pan out like you thought it would.
 
You mean like the slumlord corruption that Obama is associated with?

I think this shows the extent to which you can think reasonably about these issues, and thus the extent to which it makes sense to argue with you about it.

So if Obama was assigned a project as an Associated at a law firm, and if this guy, the slum lord, makes a contribution to Obama's campaign, that's corruption? If you're trying to make that case, you're nuts. If you want to show corruption lets see some quid pro quo in exchange for the support. Or let's see evidence of something other than working on a project as a legal associate.

Partisanship seems to lead to this kind of shallow thinking, unfortunately.
 
I think this shows the extent to which you can think reasonably about these issues, and thus the extent to which it makes sense to argue with you about it.

So if Obama was assigned a project as an Associated at a law firm, and if this guy, the slum lord, makes a contribution to Obama's campaign, that's corruption? If you're trying to make that case, you're nuts. If you want to show corruption lets see some quid pro quo in exchange for the support. Or let's see evidence of something other than working on a project as a legal associate.

Partisanship seems to lead to this kind of shallow thinking, unfortunately.

I think your snide and shallow comments indicate the underlying vulnerability and weakness of Obama. And the only "change" Taoman could come up with was corruption? Along with his typical liberal Bush attack? That is the extent of Obama's big "change"? I'm significantly underwhelmed.

Regarding the Obama-Rezko charge, it was Democrat Hillary Clinton who made the accusation. I think I'm being quite reasonable in questioning same in this discussion. Too bad if that upsets your liberal feelings because your favorite son got his halo tarnished…welcome to the big boys game.

Hillary is supposedly a knowledgeable attorney (as Obama) who should understand all the nitty gritty ins and outs of something like the Rezko case…right? It seems to me there could be more there than just what meets the eye. If there wasn't anything there I doubt she would make a case of it on national TV, would she? Perhaps she's nuts. Or perhaps there should be a Tom DeLay-style investigation.

8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.

2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article
 
bush betrayed us, hillary has no real experience outside being a senator since 2000, she rode her husbands coat tails.

she is not an accomplished woman, she is a leech and an opportunist

Look SE, you're party screwed up. They backed mr. bush who has been a terrible president. History proves that CHANGE is the only thing that's certain. Those who resist change are left behind. Prove to me that history tells us otherwise, or shut the hell up with you're sob story and childish whining about an election your party can no longer compete in.
 
You mean like the slumlord corruption that Obama is associated with?
No worse than the corrupt practices of any one of the candidates. You hate based on party lines and are willing to forgive Republicans no matter how vile they act. All politicians are corrupt.

According to the Patreus guidelines we are winning. "Gouge the Rich!" is the liberal mantra...send the investors fleeing to other countries! That's really going to help America (sarcasm)
If you don't know then you shouldn't care.
What is the definition of victory in Iraq? What are the objectives? And you are such a sell-out. So gouge the middle class and send their jobs overseas rather than act like a civil society and marginalize at least some of the power that the investment firms and banks have over our laws and legislators?

"Toleration" is a liberal word. I don't have to be "tolerant" of any race or religion. I just can't legally discriminate against them in certain public situations. And where does it say I must be "tolerant" of all political ideologies?
So be proud to be a bigot. Yeah, you'll get far in life. Your mom must be proud.

Whether I worship or how I worship are two different things entirely. Just because the government cannot tell me how to worship in the public square does not mean the government can tell me I can't worship in the public square.
Correct, but the government cannot worship, or display religious icons, or display religious text...unless they concede to display all corresponding icons & texts from all other religions. Do you understand the difference?

Who told you freedom of religion is freedom from religion? Are you going to tell that soapbox preacher he can't preach in the park just because you can hear him?
I have freedom from religion, it is my right to not be preached to, my right to not be harassed because of my beliefs, my right to not be singled out for not praying. If a preacher gets on a soapbox and preaches in a park, that is fine. If that preacher is funded by a government agency - that is wrong. If that preacher comes to my house with his followers to preach outside my lawn in order to force-feed his hyperbole to me - that is wrong. Can you follow this now? Why would you have the right to force your views on me and I not have the right to have peace from those views? Your argument is very one-sided.

If you're a secular slob then it is your perfect right to leave the room if those Christian crazies are praying. Government people can say Merry Christmas because Christmas is a national holiday set by the government...as opposed to the fake Kwanzaa holiday.
First of all, your logic is biased and flawed...and that shows by you saying secular slob. If Christian crazies come into a room and begin praying, why must I be the one to leave? If that is in the workplace, that is inappropriate. If that is in a government agency, that is un-Constitutional. Christmas is not a government holiday, it is a religious holiday. Government agencies must say Happy Holidays because there are other corresponding holidays, including the Winter Solistice that are just as legitimate as Christmas.

No, so secular slobs don't legislate from the bench and infuse their ideologies into law and government agencies like education.
No, they do not. No moreso than Christian extremists legislate from the bench or corporate shills legislate from the bench.

Our country was founded with a belief in a Higher Power from which come our rights. Think about it…and try not to let your animosity and hatred get in the way. Some taoist.
Look who is talking. Christians are supposed to be filled with love, forgiveness and compassion...and here you are being angry, on the attack, and very unforgiving.

Oh, you mean like the "Evangelical Taliban" who were legally protesting a fag parade and who got thrown in the slammer by the Fag Taliban for exercising their right to free speech in the public square?
The Evangelical Taliban is an extrapolation of what I feel is to come. Based on the current Evangelical born-again movements, and the extremists zeal inwhich they are trying to take over America. They see themselves as God's army and they will enforce Christian values into all levels of society. Interestingly enough, so did the Taliban in Afghanistan. So how much violence did the Evangelicals commit when they protested the gay parade?

Higher taxes are the result of a free market? Control of your health care by the government is the result of a free market? Who's the one really full of bullshit here? Wanna try again?
No, the free market is a myth. The market is not free. The SEC laws are protectionist for the shareholders and not for the workers. The CAFTA/NAFTA agreements were shareholder protection contracts and not free trade agreements. Our taxes go towards subsidies for Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and sweetheart deals for Blackwater and Haliburton.These two things are tied in together. My only contention is that our taxes go towards subsidizing clothing, housing, healthcare, food and such to make the basic necessities affordable for working and lower classes. Why is that wrong?

My opinion is getting lower when I look at the Democrats today. One must be ever-vigilant...our freedom can be taken from us if we are not.
I agree that our freedom will be taken away from us. Your demonization of the Democrats is very short-sighted. Bush set some very dangerous precedents that the next president can take further and suspend constitutional law very easily. Mitt Romney is that type of president. Hillary Clinton may also be.
 
I think this shows the extent to which you can think reasonably about these issues, and thus the extent to which it makes sense to argue with you about it.

So if Obama was assigned a project as an Associated at a law firm, and if this guy, the slum lord, makes a contribution to Obama's campaign, that's corruption? If you're trying to make that case, you're nuts. If you want to show corruption lets see some quid pro quo in exchange for the support. Or let's see evidence of something other than working on a project as a legal associate.

Partisanship seems to lead to this kind of shallow thinking, unfortunately.

Seems to me if it's good enough to accuse Ron Paul of racism, it ought to be good enough to accuse Obama.

Or is there more than one standard?
 
Seems to me if it's good enough to accuse Ron Paul of racism, it ought to be good enough to accuse Obama.

Or is there more than one standard?

You know as well as I do there IS more than one standard. Obama falls into several protected catagories. He is black and a Liberal. Both come with special protection from critical appraisal from the press and other politicians.
 
You know as well as I do there IS more than one standard. Obama falls into several protected catagories. He is black and a Liberal. Both come with special protection from critical appraisal from the press and other politicians.

Not from me. One thing all of my OICs/SNCOICs agreed upon: I'm might be an asshole, but at least I'm consistent about it.:badgrin:
 

Forum List

Back
Top