timesjoke

That too, I mention the limited time Obama allowed because there was so much more to go into but O'Reilly just did not have the time to cover everything in detail the way Sarah is allowing. For example, while he is waffling on the amount to raise taxes on the rich, nobody will press him on how those increases will not cover the extra money he wants to spend by a long way so where is all this new revinue comming from? Then there is this "tax break" claim. He is not lowering taxes to people, he is creating more welfare. What Obama wants to do is send checks to people who don't even pay taxes. That is not a rebate, that is a handout. A rebate is something you get back after you pay in, being as most of the people who are going to get these free checks don't pay any taxes, they can't be getting a "rebate". This is just classic Liberal Robin Hood politics. The "poor" are entitled to what the "not poor" earn because it is not fair in their minds for someone to keep the fruits of their labor.

I have a 10 year old myself and I worry about her role models, that is another big reason I am so supportive of Sarah Palin for the VP slot. We need to start showing our young girls that there is another way to be accepted and successful other than being a slut or a floor mat (like Hillary). And I will agree witht he rest of you, Salma Hayek is hot, I hate skinny, super thin chicks.

No, maybe most Liberals know their labels and slang used as demeaning attacks on someone like Bush, but clearly there are some people who live their lives quite well without trying to submit to memory your slang terms. When the liberal slang term was defined into actual policy questions Palin was not only well informed to the policy but also placed the policies into context and explained it down to the last detail proving her knowledge of Bush's policies to be quite complete. Did you even listen to what she said or was your hearing blocked by your biases? She went into great detail, maybe you need to listen to the snippet you offered again. Exactly, her long and very detailed executive jobs allowed her to adjust to this more intense level. That is what we expect experience to do for people. I guess Obama's lack of any executive experience at all would not let you see the difference. Hey, I give Obama kudos for doing a very good job considering not one person has ever pinned him down on many of the topics O'Reilly did but again, he kept the time limited so that limited the amount of detail they could get into but with a lot of ground to cover. Let me give you an example: Obama dodged the question as to why he refuses to allow more drilling for oil. When pressed several times, Obama waffled about how our Country has some beautiful areas but he knows as well as everyone else none of the drilling being proposed (especially offshore) will effect tourist areas that people go to see so why the comment about beautiful? Clearly he does not care about helping the little guys or he would support reducing the cost of gas by increasing supply. Sarah Palin in contrast did not place any limits and gave her interviewer full freedom to explore any topic for as far as he wanted to go, now there is confidence in yourself and your possitions. Now that is just a complete lie. Why do you Liberals refuse to give her any credit when even the liberal polls show her as having a better connection to the issues that the average person cares about than Obama? She is the middle class, she is everything about the middle class and started at the bottom of politics as a school volunetter PTA member. Her politics are well established for many, many years of fighting the established order in Alaska even sometimes fighting her own party. She is not a puppet or parrot like Obama's choice for VP. I work for a living as well, so what? I put in about 60 to 70 hours a week (every week) in my job for someone else and running my own businesses, I seriously doubt you work more than I do. Then if I add in my weekend work that I do about once or twice a week for big projects I know few people in America work more than I do. The very beginning of Obama's bid for the President job has had him protraying himself as a "messiah" type figure, remeber the people fainting like he was a faith healer or something? That is where it all came from, not the GOP. Exactly, the Liberals are trying to say Obama's work is comparable to Jesus. And why do you suppose the (wrong) comment about a governor was made? Another good example of 'nice' or "changed" politics in Washington?

My belief structure does not allow for selling sex but on a more general observation outside my beliefs we can see a valuable lessone here: A fine example of saving for a rainy day. She now has something considered valuable and can make a great deal of money from it. Not to mention that most girls lose it in a 3 minute clumsy mess where she gets nothing out of the deal, at least now she stands a chance of getting a guy who is experienced enough to make this first time something good to remember instead of just "getting it over with".

The thing about NK that bothers me is the pattern set, Bill Clinton tried pure diplomacy and failed, Bush forced the 6 party talks and it has had some success but there have been signs of it breaking down as well and if the stories of the stroke are true, who knows what will happen next. Ron Paul directly said he would never take military action outside of American soil, he would have been a disaster as President but he is a great addition as a part of the voices for our nation to play counterpoint to the radicals on the other side. In my opinion Obama is too weak to deal with these kinds of issues as well. Obama has never been a leader of any sort, how do you take a guy who has forever been a follower and ask him to lead a nation as Big as America?

Is there a piece of legislation called the "Bush Doctrin" that I don't know of? Sarah did an incredible job of speaking on the issues and being a solid executive, ready to answer clearly and make no excuses for possitions. She clearly pointed out the specifics of what he was wanting to know, who cares what slang term is used to describe those possitions. Considering her sudden thrust into this high stakes political arena, she did much better than any of the liberals who call her a nothing could ever have imagined and their fear of her is evident by trying to pick at this little tidbit. Obama only agreed to 30 minutes of interview with O'reily knowing that is all he could take being he has never been pressed on the issues, Sarah had no time limit and charley interviewed for over an hour and a half before running out of questions and calling it quits himself. Sarah is an incredible woman, too bad the Liberals are too stuck on their savior to see that one basic truth even if they do not agree with her politics. Hey Bender, I see your not responding to my thread about your Liberal leadership comparing Obama to Jesus, I wonder why???????

I hold higher standards of what I call conservatives but to our shame, Republicans lost sight of our once great possition of fiscal responsibility. GWB had to increase spending for the war, no arguement there, but things like earmarks got completely out od control under his watch and many, many bills got passed with huge amounts of wasted money. I so desperately want to be able to hold my Republicans to that higher standard again, maybe this combination of old guard and new rebel can breath some new life into the party, I am seriously considering leaving my party if things don't turn back to the conservative platform.

I will second that one. Not hard to see why she has so many kids I think that is the other reason Libs hate her, look at their selection of women in power, all frumpy at best, downright repulsive most of the time (Janet Reno). Tell the truth, Hillary did not seem like a sexual being. Fullauto, the PC bull was reached years ago, when you can't tell a joke in the workplace without being worried you will get sued, we have gone over the edge. These guys are just experiencing what most high level managers see in big business every day. Can you guess how many sexual harassment suits have been filed without merit in America? What I take notice of is the 'spirit' of the attacks. Attacking Palion saying stuff like her only qualification is she has not had an abortion or is a govenor like the guy who had Jesus killed is certainly a very evil 'spirit'. Saying she is a step backward for women? Saying she should not be VP because she is a mom? Saying she is a bad mother because her 17 year old had risky sex and did not abort the result? ETC................ This is all way over the top and there is not one example of anything anywhere close to this kind of personal attacks being done by high ranking Republicans against Obama.

Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen (D) ?If you want change, you want the Democratic Party,? Cohen said. ?Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.? This is not some wacko from the daily KOS, this is a long term solid Liberal who has power in their party. This guy clearly shows how star struck and blinded the Liberals have become tword Obama. What is worse they are really reaching desperately to attack Sarah at the same time. The comment about Pontius Pilate being a govenor was clearly a comparison trying to say she is trying to kill their savoir Obama (Jesus). Too bad Pontius Pilate was not a govenor, he was a Prefect. Prefects were typically appointed by govenors and sometimes worked as a kind of second in command to the govenor, but were not a govenor as this idiot claims. Just how rediclious will these blinded fools (liberals) get?

No matter what Clinton tells Obama to do, at this point any change in the ticket will be seen as reactionary to Sarah, this will again show he is scared of her and that will give her more power with the common people. "NEVER LET THEM SEE YOU SWEAT." Clearly Obama has already flinched at the inclusion of Sarah to the ticket, he is rattled and if he changes his running mate now, he will be admitting his first choice was a bad decision on his part. This will leave all the room in the world to talk about how weak he is to get scared and how he is second guessing himself now in an election, what happens when he faces real life and death issues? If I was his advisor I would tell him to embrace his runnuing mate and move foward with feigned (if not real) confidence and attack the issues and one very importent thing, STOP TALKING ABOUT SARAH. He is running against McCain, if he does not get his attention back to McCain he will lose big at the election.

I stand corrected, see, I can admit when I am wrong.

Playing nice, like telling lies that McCain wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years? That was a complete distortion of something McCain mentioned as a comparison as to how we still have troops in Europe but under a completely different mission. The problem with Obama is he has no "straight talk" to offer. He wants to increase government spending by the largest amount in over 20 years and the tax increases for the rich will only cover 1/10th the cost so where do you think all that money will come from? You have that backwards, Obama has no history of ever reforming anything. Obama has no history of successfully running anything. Obama has no executive experience. Obama has no economics experience. Obama has no world politics experience. Obama has nothing but a word, it is a pretty word to be sure, but the word "change" used without substance to back it up is a hollywood gimic. Just like Obama's halftime show acceptance speach, he is all glitter and glamor but just like most of the actors in Hollywood who also play a false role to fool the masses, they are a complete mess in real life. Obama set himself up as the 'MESSIAH', not McCain. In several recent polls, Obama and McCain were judged buy two standards, doers and talkers. Mccain was rated a doer, Obama was rated a talker. We don't need another talker. At the end of the day all the pretty words are forgotten and the 20 foot tall pillars are returned to the movie lot Obama does not have the credentials to run the largest economy/military in the world.

Once Sarah used the lipstick line in her acceptance speech, she became attached to any use of lipstick as a jab from the Liberals, Obama is a very deliberate speaker, he is given praise by all sides for his speaking abilities and he has been picture perfect to the PC gods so are we now going to believe that he does not know how connected lipstick comments are to her? I don't think so, clearly he was taking a shot at her but as someone else said, I think he was calling her lipstick on McCain as the pig. Even if he is completely innocent, I still see this as a good thing. Obama has made adds that were complete lies like the one where he says McCain wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years. McCain never said that but Obama used a twist on McCain's words to create a false attack. At the worse, Obama is just getting back what he has given.

Well taking the idea that God is all powerful and capable of spreading the same mesage to the world in it's entirity, not just a very tiny speck of it, I have to believe the isolated event was on purpose and intended for the people involved, possibly even more but clearly not everyone because everyone was not involved in anything like this. If you consider it closely, not even 1% of the worlds population was involved in these times and stories so why make assumptions on God's mission? There was no other way for Jesus, just like there was no other way for Job, certain things are done for reasons only God can tryly explain, and maybe not even then because we may not be able to see thing his way. All I am saying is God must have a reason for not pressing this same faith in other areas, because he does not leave things to chance. Think of this like a war, not all soldiers are given the same instructions or the same goals, or even the same battlefield, but all are just as important to the whole. edit to respond to eddo Great post eddo and that is my intention by saying most faiths are serving the same God, man has done nothing perfect, no reason to expect designing a religion that is perfect would have any different result than anything else. My view even goes beyone the standard faiths you mentioned though, as I said just now, different soldiers for different tasks, all serving the same top leader.

Great post eddo. Clearly those with faith are not suddenly tranc\sformed into something other then human. Those who follow faith are basically exactly the same as everyone else, but we decide to aspire to do better, to knowingly admit where we are flawed and to try and not make the same mistakes over and over. We have a guideline for our behavoir even if we don't always meet that goal every day.

And going back to my earlier point that far from all people have exposure to a 'Christian' religion, this is why I believe almost all Religions are based on the same God and that God has other plans for these groups than the group he offered his son to. God clearly had the power to place examples of Jesus all over the world at the same time if he wanted that. Why only one small representation in one tiny location?

But Christianity first hit Africa in the fifteenth centery, that is why I have asked why now? Why not a long time ago if just 'partial' coverage is the requirement because we can say that all areas have been 'exposed' to the Christian faith for a very long time. We all know that many people like my earlier examples and many, many others, never get any exposure to Christian gospel so again, if massive amounts of people still cannot get the chance to know of a Christian God, how can we say they can be judged? Matthew 24:34-Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. The context of "this generation" is widely discussed but many say this means the chance has come and gone for this prediction. I believe "this generation" instead meant a generation to come but also we have to go further into Matthew and see that we clearly cannot predict the time this will happen. Matthew 24:44-Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. I have difficulty believing any attempt to predict this can be accurate because we are specifically told that we cannot know when this will happen and it will be like a thief in the night, comming without warning.

Well I have Wez on block because of the way he 'pretends' to not know the difference between a terrorist who prefers to kill a bus filled with children and Bush, I will keep him on block because he does this on purpose because he feeds on strife, not because he truly believes the crap he says. It is actually very sad, I actually believe he is a very smart guy and could offer a lot more to these discussions from that possition instead of his 'self martyr' possition but I guess that is not what his personality needs at this time. What I saw you quote does not really explain how we can be in the 'range' of the end times when there are massive amounts of people who do not have the chance to be exposed to 'Christian' religion, such as the Muslim masses who learn to recite the Quran from listening to tapes because they will never know how to read or even places like Darfur where yes, there are missionaries but waking up each day is a surprise and food is non-existent. Learning about a new religion is not really high on the list of things to do for these people. To help the discussion go faster, my own belief is almost all religions are worshiping the same God but maybe there were different expectations or directions God desired from these different groups, much like the example given for God seeing a parade from the air instead of the ground like we do. Maybe Gods plan is beyond our ability to understand it completely. I believe the biggest mistake we make as modern man is to look at these writings from our perspective, we add in our modern understandings of things but the audience of these actions and the people involved had a tiny exposure on the world, there was no mass media or internet so is it possible that these things were instructed a certain way for their understanding and area? To me the understanding of God is inside us all, sure we can find some great things in the Bible to assist us in connecting to God but even a small child knows right from wrong because they 'feel' it inside themselves.

And yet there are still many people who never hear a 'Christian' faith preached. If we take this verse litteral, it says this gospel will be "preached" in the whole world, this is clearly not the case right now and if partial coverage is enough now, why not ten years ago or even 50 years ago, or even 500 years ago? Do you know how long we have had missionaries all over the world? Penetrations have been made long before there was even a thought of mass media. Matthew 24:36-No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 24:43-But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. If the end of days was measurable or predictable, why would we be told that we will be taken by surprise? That the time is not known to anyone but God?

I just want to say I like your thread Phantom, lots of great information and your personal knowledge of the Bible is a welcome addition to any discussion of this type. Most seem to enjoy picking one verse from the Bible and using it out of context to try and twist things for their own purposes. I have a question for you, when the Bible tells us that all people will know about God yet we know for fact that many people even now are never exposed to a "Christian" religion, how do you balance this part of it's teachings? I have always said God made man, man made the many religions. Man has never done anything perfect so how can we expect there to be a "perfect" religion? A big question is with all these splinters of faith, who is right and if only one is right, are the rest condemned? I would say no, in my own research I feel the common elements show a God who is not concerned with the splintered possitions of man to attempt to worship 'him' but is instead concerned with what we hold in our hearts and our actions. We do not get a Johnnie L. Cochran to mitigate our actions with God at our end.

Some may consider Geroge Washington a 'founding father', I know I do. The closing paragraph of a letter to the governors of the 13 states on the occasion of his retirement from command of the Continental Army and public life.

The problem is, you asked for people to give their input, I gave input then was banned because you did not like what I offered. If you did not want people to give advise, why ask for it? The only real problem I had with getting banned is I never broke a single rule while Wez broke the rules almost every day. Why is it you give more understanding to someone who is openly a trouble maker and directly challenging the peace of things but you ban someone who is only trying to help you establish the peace? All you had to do is tell me you were not interested in my advise and I would have shut up, instead you got pissed off that you knew I was right and banned me from your own frustration, not anything bad done on my part. And today Wez is still baiting people in almost every post he makes, you have not done a single thing to curb his antics, if you don't care fine, just admit it and that makes everything understandable but when you "say" you want to decrease the personal attacks I thought you actually meant that, how was I to know you were not being honest?

I cant believe you guys are still having the same endless loop discussions with Wez. He is only playing stuipd, he knows the difference is intent, the element in our hearts or 'souls' that color our actions. Actions on their own do not define actions as good or bad, it is the motivation or intent that do this. A terrorist is interested in something like a 9/11 event where the most civilian and innocent lives lost the better. A John McCain kind of man is looking for military targets and trying not to hurt civilians. If we only focus down to just an action without the context that the actions are done in then we can never take actions for the better. A man kills another man, the action itself without any other consideration may seem as bad but if you pull your focus outward to include motivations and intent you allow yourself to see the action for what it 'truly' is. The same action that 'seems' bad can be good if this killing is to save an innocent child's life from being murdered by the man you stopped. Giving a child candy and being friendly can be good unless it is a child molester trying to gain the trust of the child in order to abuse the child, then the kind 'looking' action is truly bad. People who hate America try to keep others from seeing context of actions so they can make their terrorist buddies seem the same as us to protect them and assist them to destroy America. They work to cause inaction, to stay our hands and create hesitation as opportunities for the terrorists to do their job of killing as many of our innocents as possible.

Hello, my name is timesjoke and I'm a conservative. I figured I would reintroduce myself to those who may have forgotten me or come here after the scary ban stick was waved in my direction. I am thinking the staff just screwed up when they unbanned me being as I was banned without ever breaking a single rule but who knows, maybe they were just bored and decided to take some chances again, lol. All I can say for sure is I am still me and cannot be anyone else. I am someone most would consider to be too blunt and direct. I do not waste time on kissing behinds or trying to protect other peoples feelings during a discussion. I assume anyone discussing things on what is supposed to be an adult debate forum to actually 'be' an adult and be capable of acting that way without resorting to playground mentalities as a kind of avoidance of direct debate. Anyway, I wish all well even if my return is short lived, lol. Times