|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 5, 2009 15:11:31 GMT -5
Well, it seems that the "Muslim" is coming out of The President of The United States!
Have any of you notice in his speech how deep his Muslim roots go?
Is it any wonder that Al Quaeda and The Republicans hate him so much?
The Muslim world is loving what he's saying.
Of course, the extremists on both American and in Muslim Countries ( Al Quaeda and The Republicans ) hate him for speaking sensibly about our problems and those things that divide us.
But, never the less, America (and the world) still overwhelmingly approve of The President and of the job he's doing.
And...so does the economy!
His plans are turning this ecomony around!
Obama!
Obama!
Obama!
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 10, 2009 11:21:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 10, 2009 11:32:44 GMT -5
I still don't understand how you can support Obama, Cepha.
So, if some one like Stalin had some kick butt economic policies and was a really cool dude that helped some poor people, but on the side he was helping wipe out millions of innocent people, you'd be ok with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 12, 2009 9:05:30 GMT -5
So, in your opinion, everybody should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves, right? But not everybody should be allowed to have "nukes"? I'll offer the same arguments that the Pro-Gunners make...if everybody had Nukes, there'd be far less crime going on. If Iran had nukes and Iraq had nukes, would they have went to war? No, because the nukes would' ve been a deterrent (just like they were for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R..). Iran should be allowed to have nukes, so should the Chinese and the Koreans. Then everything would be "fair" and no one country could control the world. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 12, 2009 9:12:09 GMT -5
I still don't understand how you can support Obama, Cepha. So, if some one like Stalin had some kick butt economic policies and was a really cool dude that helped some poor people, but on the side he was helping wipe out millions of innocent people, you'd be ok with that? Why do you put "support" and "wipe out millions of innocent people" in the same post? The two don't belong together. I followed Church teaching here (I bet I was the only one on this board who did) when I voted. To the contrary, The Church actually teaches that if a candidate is 100% Pro-Life, but is for unjust war or against Church teachings on other things, then we are NOT supposed to automatically vote for him just because he claims to be Pro-Life in one field. To answer you question, The Church told me it was ok to support President Obama as long as I was opposed to his Pro-Choice stances. So if Mother Church tells me my decision was ok, who is anyone to question it? And, are you inferring that Obama is "Pro-Death"? That he actually wants abortion to occur? Have you not read his works on it? Have you not read how he wants to bring down the number of abortions to only (what he considers) absolutely neccessary abortions (which The Catholic Church also agrees with)? I bet you never even visited his website to see what his stance is on abortion, have you? Have you ever looked at his voting record? It might actually surprise you. You'll note by his voting record that a lot of what is espoused about him are lies by Right Wing Extremists. Read for yourself (like I did before I made my choice). Study his voting record on Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issues. Educate yourself Teresa. I already did. And my conscience is clear. I sleep well at night! ;D I did something most Catholics didn't do...I made an "informed" decision. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 12, 2009 15:30:43 GMT -5
So, in your opinion, everybody should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves, right? But not everybody should be allowed to have "nukes"? I'll offer the same arguments that the Pro-Gunners make...if everybody had Nukes, there'd be far less crime going on. If Iran had nukes and Iraq had nukes, would they have went to war? No, because the nukes would' ve been a deterrent (just like they were for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R..). Iran should be allowed to have nukes, so should the Chinese and the Koreans. Then everything would be "fair" and no one country could control the world. ;D I think "trustworthy" people should have the right to bare arms....also think "trustworthy" countries should have nukes. NOT THE INSAIN ONES!!!!!!! DUH! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 12, 2009 15:37:35 GMT -5
So, in your opinion, everybody should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves, right? But not everybody should be allowed to have "nukes"? I'll offer the same arguments that the Pro-Gunners make...if everybody had Nukes, there'd be far less crime going on. If Iran had nukes and Iraq had nukes, would they have went to war? No, because the nukes would' ve been a deterrent (just like they were for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R..). Iran should be allowed to have nukes, so should the Chinese and the Koreans. Then everything would be "fair" and no one country could control the world. ;D I think "trustworthy" people should have the right to bare arms....also think "trustworthy" countries should have nukes. NOT THE INSAIN ONES!!!!!!! DUH! So then for you, not everybody has a right to bear arms in America? Only folk you deem worthy?  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 12, 2009 23:36:31 GMT -5
No only the ones that LEGALLY can, ya know like not criminals with records. Yeah, kinda makes since right... Agree?
I mean, do you think Bin Laden should have access to nukes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 13, 2009 8:36:58 GMT -5
So, in your opinion, everybody should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves, right? But not everybody should be allowed to have "nukes"? I'll offer the same arguments that the Pro-Gunners make...if everybody had Nukes, there'd be far less crime going on. If Iran had nukes and Iraq had nukes, would they have went to war? No, because the nukes would' ve been a deterrent (just like they were for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R..). Iran should be allowed to have nukes, so should the Chinese and the Koreans. Then everything would be "fair" and no one country could control the world. ;D I think "trustworthy" people should have the right to bare arms....also think "trustworthy" countries should have nukes. NOT THE INSAIN ONES!!!!!!! DUH! Sooo...you discriminate against who can have guns! LOL! See, that's not "equal" rights! The 2nd Amendment says that EVERYBODY has the right to have guns. That everybody includes domestic terrorists, crazy people, etc... You can't "cafetiriaize" the Constitution! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 13, 2009 8:48:16 GMT -5
No only the ones that LEGALLY can, ya know like not criminals with records. Yeah, kinda makes since right... Agree? I mean, do you think Bin Laden should have access to nukes? If racists domestic terrorists in America can have access to guns, then Bin Ladin can have access to nukes! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 13, 2009 14:23:38 GMT -5
I still don't understand how you can support Obama, Cepha. So, if some one like Stalin had some kick butt economic policies and was a really cool dude that helped some poor people, but on the side he was helping wipe out millions of innocent people, you'd be ok with that? Why do you put "support" and "wipe out millions of innocent people" in the same post? The two don't belong together. I followed Church teaching here (I bet I was the only one on this board who did) when I voted. To the contrary, The Church actually teaches that if a candidate is 100% Pro-Life, but is for unjust war or against Church teachings on other things, then we are NOT supposed to automatically vote for him just because he claims to be Pro-Life in one field. To answer you question, The Church told me it was ok to support President Obama as long as I was opposed to his Pro-Choice stances. So if Mother Church tells me my decision was ok, who is anyone to question it? And, are you inferring that Obama is "Pro-Death"? That he actually wants abortion to occur? Have you not read his works on it? Have you not read how he wants to bring down the number of abortions to only (what he considers) absolutely neccessary abortions (which The Catholic Church also agrees with)? I bet you never even visited his website to see what his stance is on abortion, have you? Have you ever looked at his voting record? It might actually surprise you. You'll note by his voting record that a lot of what is espoused about him are lies by Right Wing Extremists. Read for yourself (like I did before I made my choice). Study his voting record on Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issues. Educate yourself Teresa. I already did. And my conscience is clear. I sleep well at night! ;D I did something most Catholics didn't do...I made an "informed" decision. Actually, you are right. And I almost voted for Obama. It was an agonizing choice actually. But NO WAY did I vote for McCain. I voted for the Constitution Party Candidate. (who are against war and abortion--actually they are against all forms of killing) But I read the Church stuff about voting and I do think it could have been possible to vote for him with a clear conscience. After all, McCain wasn't pro-life either! I guess I just really hate abortion, so I take it out on Obama.  Bush isn't there, so who are we supposed to blame for stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 13, 2009 17:33:35 GMT -5
No only the ones that LEGALLY can, ya know like not criminals with records. Yeah, kinda makes since right... Agree? I mean, do you think Bin Laden should have access to nukes? If racists domestic terrorists in America can have access to guns, then Bin Ladin can have access to nukes! ;D And they say women are irrational! The nutjob in Iran just rigged the elections so he could be president again. This guy is irrational just like you are and he would love to start a nuclear war because he believes in the second coming of Jesus. He believes he can instigate the second coming by attacking Israel. He believes Jesus will come back and help the Moslems to kill all of the Jews. like this goober isn't suicidel. Wouldn't it be funny if he did start a war and the Christians were all raptured? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 13, 2009 23:07:34 GMT -5
I think "trustworthy" people should have the right to bare arms....also think "trustworthy" countries should have nukes. NOT THE INSAIN ONES!!!!!!! DUH! Sooo...you discriminate against who can have guns! LOL! See, that's not "equal" rights! The 2nd Amendment says that EVERYBODY has the right to have guns. That everybody includes domestic terrorists, crazy people, etc... You can't "cafetiriaize" the Constitution! LOL! It is not a "right" to own a gun...its a "priveledge" just like driving a car, its not your right,...its your "priveledge. So, LAW ABIDING citizens have the PRIVELEDGE to own a gun until they get that right taken away. I think Bin Laden has surpassed the "right" or "priveledge" to have anything. Now, if you support him having any nukes...you yourself are not american and need to rewatch the 911 documentary. You might change your mind. I seriously cannot even believe we are arguing over this OBSURD topic. Its a no brainer for most people! |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 14, 2009 7:47:38 GMT -5
Actually, CC, it does say we have the "right" to bear arms. That is the word used.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Article the first. .... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every 30,000 until the number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than 100 Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than 200 Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every 50,000 persons.
Article the second ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Article the fifth ....... No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh .. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Article the ninth .. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article the tenth ..... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article the eleventh .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth ... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
ATTEST,
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam A. Otis, Secretary of the Senate.
Of course, their have been many Supreme court cases that have defined exactly what they want these articles to mean. That has brought certain restrictions, like each person can't have an uzi. I guess some weapons aren't really considered "arms" so you can't just have anything you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 12:21:10 GMT -5
Actually, you are right. And I almost voted for Obama. It was an agonizing choice actually. But NO WAY did I vote for McCain. I voted for the Constitution Party Candidate. (who are against war and abortion--actually they are against all forms of killing) But I read the Church stuff about voting and I do think it could have been possible to vote for him with a clear conscience. After all, McCain wasn't pro-life either! I guess I just really hate abortion, so I take it out on Obama. Bush isn't there, so who are we supposed to blame for stuff? It turned my stomach when I found out about all the Pro-Choice acts he signed recently until I found out that they were actually law right before Obama was elected. Bush, on his way out, did away with them, literally in his last week or so. So, Obama signed them right back into law in his first month or so. What bothers me is that when these things were law under Bush, you didn't hear one Republican or Pro-Life Catholic attack Bush. But when Obama undid what Bush did in his last week (why he didn't undo those laws at the beginning of his Presidency, Bush, that is, is beyond me), then all of a sudden they started to get mad which leads me to think...why is it that Obama gets attacked for allowing the exact same Pro-Choice laws that existed before he was President by Bush, yet Bush wasn't treated like that? What's the difference between the two? Hmmm... There's only one thing worse than lies to me and that's hypocrasy. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 14, 2009 12:30:43 GMT -5
Heather.... in the state of tx if you have a felony on your record, you cannot have a gun of any sort. I believe but not sure that goes for every state. And no you cannot "legally" own an automatic gun or silenser. Wes is a lifetime member of the NRA, and we have pistols and shotgun to protect our home. We do not hunt but anyone who gets past my german shepherd gets shot. I will do whatever it takes to protect my family. I actually am scared of guns because accidents do happen, but i feel they are a nessecity of the present times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 14:06:01 GMT -5
Sooo...you discriminate against who can have guns! LOL! See, that's not "equal" rights! The 2nd Amendment says that EVERYBODY has the right to have guns. That everybody includes domestic terrorists, crazy people, etc... You can't "cafetiriaize" the Constitution! LOL! It is not a "right" to own a gun...its a "priveledge" just like driving a car, its not your right,...its your "priveledge. So, LAW ABIDING citizens have the PRIVELEDGE to own a gun until they get that right taken away. I think Bin Laden has surpassed the "right" or "priveledge" to have anything. Now, if you support him having any nukes...you yourself are not american and need to rewatch the 911 documentary. You might change your mind. I seriously cannot even believe we are arguing over this OBSURD topic. Its a no brainer for most people! You sound JUST like King George who said it wasn't a right for The Original Patriots to own shovels! LOL! Forget that, everyman has a right to defend themselves by any means neccesary. Every citizen should have a right to a gun period or if not, whoever is the majority can crush the minority. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 14, 2009 14:09:44 GMT -5
Marcie- I agree, owning a gun is a priveldge. If misused (or the person breaks the law) it should be taken away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 14:11:33 GMT -5
Heather.... in the state of tx if you have a felony on your record, you cannot have a gun of any sort. I believe but not sure that goes for every state. And no you cannot "legally" own an automatic gun or silenser. Wes is a lifetime member of the NRA, and we have pistols and shotgun to protect our home. We do not hunt but anyone who gets past my german shepherd gets shot. I will do whatever it takes to protect my family. I actually am scared of guns because accidents do happen, but i feel they are a nessecity of the present times. That's discrimination against felons. I guess this aint' The Land of The Free as much as we want to believe. What happens if someone is trying to attack the felon's family? Can't he protect his innocent children? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 14:13:39 GMT -5
Marcie- I agree, owning a gun is a priveldge. If misused (or the person breaks the law) it should be taken away. For me, it's a right. This type of thinking is what leads to the people being ruled by the majority or by the powerful minority. It just ain't right. No man is God. Only God can say what a man's "rights" are and guns aren't forbidden in scripture! ;D Anyway, it's far easier to get an illegal gun than it is to go through the system and the illegal gun can't be traced back to you! |
|
