Huckabee surging in polls...scary

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I guess I'm not too crazy about Democrats winning either because it seems that every time they are in control they usually want to give everything to everybody whether they lift a finger to work for it or not. This way of thinking really rubs me the wrong way. It goes against my "Yankee work ethic" I guess.

I'm starting to consider candidates more as individuals rather than along party lines since Republicans have opened their own can of worms of course. :biggrin1:

Are you under the impression that Repubs don't hand out a majority of the freebies today?

Illegals? Hello????? We now have 1/3 of Mexico living in the US illegally. Yes, 1/3 of their country.

Can you tell me what Bush or his buddies have done to stop this? Probably not, but I can tell you how they have helped the illegals moving here. And btw, Mexico is but one country of many that are doing this.

Your Repubs are the ones that want to have illegals go back and offer up a list of SS#s they have stolen so that the gov't can go back and give them SS credit for hours worked. They shouldn't have been here to begin with and who else but illegals do we turn our heads as they break laws? Everything from entering the country illegally, working illegally, stealing the names and SS#'s of others, and now we want them to be able to retire here?

That would be the Repubs lately.

People really don't have the slightest idea anymore what Dem vs. repub means and that includes politicians. The meanings have changed entirely from what they were in the beginning. So to claim to be Dem or Repub is totally meaningless today. It means absolutely nothing. So ANYONE that votes merely by party affiliation is a complete dolt.

Years ago my Mom wanted to run for a specific office. She was a Republican which meant she had virtually no chance so she changed her party to Democrat.

Do you honestly believe she is the only one?

I'm just hoping that at least once in my lifetime there will be someone, anyone running for any major political office that is worthy of a vote.

[green 6]

But the Pledge of Allegiance, which now contains the phrase "one nation under God" did NOT contain those words until the 1950s. Our money has looked different from time to time, and "in God we trust" doesn't bear the weight of a national motto or anything. Our only official national motto is E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One). That has nothing to do with a creator or higher power.

We were emphatically NOT "founded" as a nation under God--the precise opposite is true. No religious test for leaders, no laws respecting the establishment of religion, separation of church and state: these are the founding principles of the United States and it seems we are forgetting that.

Thanks so much, Alexandra. This was the point that I was kinda trying to make but I am a foreigner and what I believe is my firm grasp of American history sometimes proves to be inaccurate. :help:

It also strikes me that this notion that having a reference to God on yer money is in fact a compelling argument that America is a Christian state might well be considered an unattractive argument in the court of Jesus. Didn't He chuck those money lenders out of His temple? And didn't He make a point of talking about rendering unto Caesar?

In Canada we have the British Queen on our coin. This is our custom and it displays not only this country's roots but her on-going connection with the rest of the commonwealth countries. And that is exactly it. It is all very boring and nobody spends anytime at all thinking about that very nice Queen nor her dysfunctional family.

A state can chose to put anything it wants on its coin. Money has nothing to do with spiritual issues. The value of money has to do with the health of a state's economy. To argue that the mention of God on your currency indicates a special Christian connection is just plain illogical.

I am aware that I have been sounding harsh. To tell you the truth, I have no problem with those who do have faith. I have met faith-filled individuals whom I have deeply envied. I do, however, have serious problems with those have chosen to use their beliefs as an excuse not to learn, to analyse, to think.

[green 6]

Sweethot, is the following at all familiar to you? What part of this particular document leads you to believe a god was leading anyone with any body part? What leads you to believe this was written by a Christian basing his work on Christian beliefs? And founding the country with a Christian twist?

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

• JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
  MAMET, Treasurer.
  AMET, Minister of Marine.
  SOLIMAN KAYA.
  GALIL, General of the Troops.
  MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
  AMET, Chamberlain.
  ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
  MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of

January, 1797, by

• HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, JOEL BARLOW.

Wow! This is too cool! Thanks for posting this splendid document! :whoo:

[gadgetlady 4]

Wow! This is too cool! Thanks for posting this splendid document! :whoo:

It's probably a good idea to delve into the history of the document, WHY it was written, and why specifically Article 11 was in there. Does it not seem strange to have it in there? There was a reason . . . I'll let you do your own research. Never take anything at face value.

[green 6]

I've read that it was, in fact, the EYE that most troubled Darwin about his theory. He couldn't quite reconcile it's exqisite intricacies and precision with the randomness of evolution.

I suspect, that were he alive today, DNA would quickly convince him (as it has thousands of scientists around the world) of the impossibility of his ideas and persuade him to the only possible explanation: Intelligent Design

Not necessarily. If you had done your homework as a curious layman by reading up on your latest scientific research for dummies, as I continue to do, you would be aware that the planet is billions of years old and that the eye is in fact the end result of many trials and failures as, indeed, is each and every aspect of us: our limbs, our brains, our neurochemistry, etc. In short, any animal born with non-functioning or poorly functioning eyes will not perform well in the race for survival. And certainly these poor handicapped creatures will not be attracting mates and thus will not be bearing young. In the billions of years old tale that is evolution the deal was this: the weaker, the handicapped creatures end up in the food bowls of the more powerful.

Evolution was never something which moved smoothly heavenward in an easily graphable path. There were always other factors at play. There were a series of global catastrophes which mixed things up.

You should also be aware that there is another, entirely alien form of eye which was another environmental option. That would be the insect eye.

I take the opposite view from you.

I believe that Darwin would be enthralled by the results of the research into DNA. He would find the fact that so much of this genetic material is shared by just about all living forms to be a further argument in favour of his theory. He would consider that it is the fact that it is only those miniscule differences in our genetic script which control our destinies - that we live out our lives as humans, not as monkeys, nor mice, nor pigs, nor, for that matter, as genetically handicapped men or women - to be a sign that we have indeed developed through an evolutionary process.

I believe that even creationists will acknowledge that there are certain tragic diseases which are the result of a genetic misfiring. If these tragedies could be argued to be a manifestation of a kind of devolution then certainly the opposite also happens. Evolution is only best in show as it continues over billions of years.

[heather113076 0]

Why do Christians, well I should say fundamentalist Christians, find it so upsetting when someone says "I don't believe what you believe". They go into a rant and preach, preach, preach to the person that made the statement. And that is OK according to said fundamentalist Christian. It is OK for them to throw their personal beliefs down the throat of the atheist or the pagan or whatever. But when the atheist or the pagan or whatever says "well I believe this or that" the fundamentalist Christian gets offended and says "YOU CANT CHANGE WHAT I BELIEVE!!". Nobody wants to change anyones beliefs. I am quite certain that the founding fathers came to this country to practice their religion without fear of persecution as their religion was different than their homeland. This country was founded on the priniciple of "freedom of religion". If the founding fathers were Christians(and I believe they were) they wanted people to be able to practice whatever religion they followed without fear of persecution. I believe in God yes but I do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I dont really follow any particular religion. If you do then that is fine with me because ultimately at the end of the day your religion does not matter to me. When I go to the annual Christmas luncheon at work and the CEO asks us to bow our heads and pray I just sit silently(because he prays to Jesus). It does not offend me that he prays to Jesus because that is his religion. My point is that NOBODY can make me believe the same as them nor can I make anyone believe the same as me. If you dont agree with someone's religion that is fine but dont go telling them they are wrong. And I understand that you are so happy and at peace with your religion and that is great! But just because I believe differently than you do does not mean that I am not happy and at peace with my religion. My husband believes in Jesus(he does not attend church) and we decided to let the children make up their own minds about religion. Right now our girls go to church and they believe in Jesus. I tell them no differently, I dont tell them they are wrong and I dont try to change their minds. I figure the older they get if they question their beliefs they will "look elsewhere" so to speak.

Now as far as religion in schools go this is my personal opinion. I dont believe ANY religion or religious practices should be allowed in school. BECAUSE if you allow Christianity in schools then Hinduism will follow, then Buddhism and I have NO PROBLEM with any of those. My point is this~ eventually you will get someone that practices Satanism(not to be confused with Paganism people) wanting to bring some kind of relgious practice into the school and to me that is NOT acceptable for my children to be exposed to that. That is where I draw the line. They can find enough evil in the world by turning on the news or picking up a newspaper. And you cant tell them no they can bring it into school, not if you have allowed Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc into the school because Satanism is an "organized" religion just like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

As far as politicians go I will say this: I believe in honest politicians like I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

[green 6]

I have no problem with teaching religion in school....just as soon as they start teaching math, science and critical thought processes from the various alters in those churches that want to be in the schools....

:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

[transformer 1]

Are you under the impression that Repubs don't hand out a majority of the freebies today?

As far as the illegal immigration issue is concerned, that debaucle has been going on for years and years and years, not just during the current Bush's presidency (part of the Republican "can of worms" I already referred to). So, we could draw the conclusion, therefore, that no one, not a Republican nor a Democrat, has done a damn thing to stem the tide of illegals streaming into the country for decades (not just Mexicans, by the way). Neither side has done anything substantive to change things...except to admit defeat by posting directions in every language imaginable...GRRR!!

My original comment referred to those LEGAL U.S. citizens among us who have made a "career" out of collecting welfare. It is now an acceptable way to make a living from what I can tell. Once the parents adopt this lifestyle, their bazillion children follow suit and a new generation of welfare-dependent people is born. Many of them are quite skilled at cheating the system at every turn and collect money even if they don't really qualify. I'm tired of watching people do nothing with their lives and collect my tax $$ while I bust my butt to barely break even.

Republican candidates tend to take the position that they want to do away with these free handouts and minimize government--whether that will ever actually happen, your guess is as good as mine! LOL!

[Frisky1 0]

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" Let it then (as workmanship of the same Divine hand) be our peculiar constant care and vigilant attention to inculcate this sacred principal, and to hand it down to posterity.....Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow.

Elias Boudinot (1740-1821) President of the Continental Congress

"Direct and Indirect quotes combined reveal that the majority of quotes of the Founding Fathers are derived from the bible"

America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, pg 49

"Under God" was added to The Pledge Allegiance by Pres Eisenhower Dec 28, 1945

Richard Bassett (1745-1815) One of the original signers of The Constitution of The United States and writers of the Constitution of the state of Delaware that states:

Article XXII--Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I , , do hereby profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forever more; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.

AND

Samuel Adams (1722-1803) Father of the American Revolution

As the Declaration of Independence was being signed, 1776, Samuel Adams declared;

We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come.

Just a few facts.....

[Frisky1 0]

In God We Trust

"In God We Trust"

In God We Trust is the current official national motto of the United States and the U.S. state of Florida, and all the other US states. In Spanish form, En Dios Confiamos, it is also the national motto of Nicaragua. In God We Trust became the official U.S. national motto after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

E Pluribus Unum, approved for use in the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, remains a ubiquitous motto appearing on coins and currency, and has been widely considered the national motto de facto. However, by 1956 it had not been explicitly established by legislation as the official "national motto", and therefore "In God We Trust" was selected

(Wikipedia)

[kagoscuba 0]

"In God We Trust"

That means in God we trust, not in the Trinity, or in the fallibility of man.

I have no trouble trusting in God; I do have trouble in trusting in a Presidential candidate who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Oh, and by "trusting in God" I do not mean blindly trusting to the point of delusion. If faced with a perilous situation you can trust or you can act. The truster will normally not survive.

[kagoscuba 0]

Oh, and just another fact from the Delaware Constitution:

§2. Religious test for office not required.

Section 2. No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State.

I got this from the text of the official Delaware Constitution Frisky...where did you get your unconstitutional piece from?

[Frisky1 0]

I never said to trust blindly. You were given a mind to THINK. As you can read and think, I listed my sources. I never said you have to DO anything. Just quoting some facts. The info you provided came from the amended Delaware constitition.