dhr05b

I don't believe this to be a "distracting issue," as these relationships are important to understand Obama and his M.O. Furthermore, I'd argue that negative advertising actually DOES work - and its proof is evident in how Romney took the nomination this year. The GOP took the exact opposite approach in 2008 - the John McCain way, where you don't shed any light on your opponent whatsoever, and you gloss over severe personal flaws in an effort to 'go along to get along.' The reason why the GOP was on the losing end 3.5 years ago is because the republicans didn't prop up a candidate with beliefs and convictions.

Conservatives vastly outnumber liberals. It's no longer cool to vote for Obama. You can tell his campaign is beat when he has the media talking about his opponent's haircut.

Very sorry to hear about it, PP. I'm sure there are quite a few of us on here that can relate to this. I lost my first dog when I was 7, and another one when I was 17. It never gets easier, but at least the pain and sorrow is temporary. Sounds like you're doing the right thing, and I commend you for that. I have family members that let their lab wander off and die by herself in spite of her endured pain for over a year. Nobody (man or dog) should have to do it alone.

[/quot This was not a political move as if anything, it will cost President Obama votes this November and he knows that and is willing to take that risk to stand up for what he believes is best for our country and the American people. He wants us to know that he truly has a democratic mind without prejudice towards anyone and that is how he wants to be remembered..whatever happens in November. It is interesting to read how many posters say that they have g a y friends and relatives that they love but don't want them to have basic human rights..hmm..how admirable is that? This was an extremely smart political move... How do I know that? Well, his fundraising isn't doing too well. How do you increase the coffers? You appeal to a large group of people with deep ties in the wealthy entertainment industry (it "just so happens" that Hollywood supports the ***/lesbian movement). Sidenote: interestingly enough, this 'unprecedented stance' on g a y marriage comes shortly before George Clooney hosts a $40,000/plate Obama fundraiser in his mansion. The second part of your sentence is somewhat correct. He knows, without a doubt, that this is hurting him. Mainly because a large sect of his voters (Hispanics/blacks) are extremely socially conservative. Fortunately for his cause, BO has the media in his back pocket, who will make sure this isn't discussed any longer come the end of summer. Also, the last bit of your point doesn't make much sense as he's been quoted numerous times saying that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm sure the media won't remind you of this though.

Actually, the 2008 melt down was the result of Government stepping in and ordering lending institutions to hand out sub-prime mortgages like Halloween candy. I'm not at all surprised that PBS is once again part of the spin.

Agreed, camel. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

Just one point of evidence to the contrary is that you claim we don't know what happened, yet at the same time you claim a racial slur was used (when even leftwing media has debunked the word 'coon' for the word 'cold' - which makes sense when you take into account the unseasonably low temperatures that night). Unrelated, were you abused by morals and common decency as a child? Just asking because you tend to make sacreligious references to the Bible ('book of myths') - and other bigoted statements - quite often. At least you offer humor at the same time with your ironic 'sea of ignorance' comment.

No, you're spouting media talking points, using youtube as a solid reference, and clicking the green button for your own comments.

Firstly, you made this statement, "ironically the key figures who drafted the constitution were deists..." Then you list the most commonly perceived influtential men of the process and include Jefferson, Adams, and Paine, who did NOT sign the Constitution (or attend the Convention). Secondly, I mention the Declaration of Independence because it was drafted by Thomas Jefferson (one of the most influential men of the process, by your words). You've already mentioned a few of the references to God, but I'll add the part about appealing to the "Supreme Judge of the world." Note that 'Supreme Judge' appears in Lamentations 3:59. I'll spare you the use of 'Creator' and 'God' in the Bible, since they're obviously used throughout. Also note that divine providence is essentially what Genesis is all about. These are not deist ideals, they are Biblical. Thirdly, you argue that the content of the Declaration of Indepence is of no basis for my argument that the framers (drafters/signers/Convention delegates et al) were religious. The founding of this country is dependent upon both documents. Your points about the Declaration not being a binding legal document, absent of religious mention (even though it's not, as I illustrated above), etc. are moot. They have nothing to do with my argument that the founders were vastly religious. Lastly, to address your first sentence, MOST of the founders were practicing Christians (in one form or another). It's very easy to try to mince words and say the KEY founders (of your opinion) were not religious, even though I would suggest you're still wrong. In defense of this claim, here's an excerpt from a letter George Washington's step-daughter wrote in response to an author's request (who was gathering info. on Washington for a book): 'General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother. It was a beautiful church, and had a large, respectable, and wealthy congregation, who were regular attendants.'

NEO, I adressed this same thing (about the founders being deists) a few weeks ago. Do I really need to prove you and the other atheists wrong again? Last time it ended with one of your kind trying to tell me that Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the founders... Just to kick-start our inevitable conversation, the Declaration of Independence mentions a 'Higher Intelligence' no less than 4 times.

I wouldn't call $2.50/gallon gas and less than 5% unemployment a 'down economy.'

http://gerson.org/gerpress/ Many with 6 months to live and less have been fully cured and lived cancer-free lives thereafter for many years by participating in the Gerson Therapy. To echo the sentiments on here, cancer treatment is an area that allows pharmaceuticals/treatment centers/various other institutes and programs to rake in big money - there's no real incentive to 'solve' the problem when so much of your revenue comes in the door via repeat customers. I haven't been the same since watching a documentary that included a sneak peek of a board room meeting for one of the big pharmaceutical companies. They were discussing a new type of medication that would help people in some form, but one guy objected, saying it is known to cause other issues and ailments. The response from another man was along the lines of, "well, we'll just make something for that too!" I'm not opposed to free market capitalism, but this is not a free market. It's a monopoly of the information people need in order to make informed decisions about their health. Please, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact the institute or send me a PM.

In privatizing this, I imagine some of the most asinine and demeaning practices will go away (i.e., making women pump breast milk into bottles, strip-searching elderly ladies, etc.). The attitudes of the screeners, and certainly the language used to communicate with passengers, will be much more respectful. Otherwise, the invisible hand will find another company to perform the work. That said, I still agree with what you're saying - and I stand by Ben Franklin. What has happened to us?

Good. I hope the rest of them follow suit. “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Benjamin Franklin

Did you listen to the show and the comments made? Or did you just take a few sound-bites on repeat from the MSM? Just asking.

Well stated. Thanks, TG for allowing this thread to continue. This (preservation of the Constitution) is something I am deeply concerned with, so I appreciate the opportunity for discussion.

I'll drop it after this, because I know everyone is tired of my banter. The Tim Tebow joke is an illustration of Maher's venom. I commented directly about Maher's mysoginy - calling Sarah Palin awful things and saying Michelle Bachmann will split the MILF vote. You obviously don't find Bill Maher offensive, and in fact enjoy his comedy. I'm pointing out the irony in Bill Maher's awful comments about women, while for the last 2 and half hours you've been speaking of women's health issues. That's all. I'll agree to disagree here. It's almost lunch time.

I don't equate founding fathers with the authors of the Constitution. We're speaking of the Constitution here, therefore the term is 'Framers'. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constutional Convention: 3 Roman Catholics, 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, and 2 Methodists. This leaves my original 3 deists. Can't rewrite history.

Reread what I said. Mysoginy is not equivalent to women's rights, but I see this time you interchanged 'women's rights' for human life. I'm an adult as well, but find his comments on women despicable, and not just because he speaks out against women of my political affiliation. You can't argue that you believe the Church is wrong because women have health rights, and then uphold Bill Maher - and not be recognized as a hypocrite.

Incorrect again. 3 deists total (7 Congregationalists, 2 Methodists, 2 Dutch Reformed, 10 Presbyterians, 27-28 Episcopalians, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, and a couple of Quakers). Check out usconstitution.net And again, this has everything to do with Religious Freedom - and nothing to do with equal rights. If you don't agree with the policy of the institution, go somewhere else for law school.

So now we, who were offended when Maher tweeted "Jesus just f***** Tim Tebow bad!" during the playoffs are religious zealots? You sure are a hypocritical people, to be so concerned about women's health yet champion such a vile mysoginist.

Please don't assume the position of moral and ethical superiority. Of course it's not funny. It's not funny that people show a complete and utter lack of disregard for the documents this great Country was founded upon. Do you not find the timing interesting, to say the least? The Democrats are in a frenzy trying to correct the public's opinion of the regime after the mandate infuriated a majority of the country - of course it's interesting that only days after that fiasco they are reaching out to 'real Americans' who agree with Obama's actions.

It's the Old Testament, and I have read it. It's obvious that the original topic has fallen by the wayside, and I will spare those who click on this thread the irritation of reading something they didn't intend to.