jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (90 posts)

Obama's "home Country", from the horse's mouth

  1. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago
    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When will there be a native American Indian as president?

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      *sigh* are there still people harping on about this tongue well thanks, polls show that the birther movement has significantly upped support for Obama.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Geez, doesn't the right ever stop with its trailer park antics? Ad nauseum is the term and I hope that they keep this us so I can watch them lose more and more elections in the future. They're behind with every major demographic group save the dead and the dying.........

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You got something against people who live in trailer parks, do ya?

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are right, I stand corrected. Slip of the tongue.  I should have been more precise and said people that continue with the birther nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are unsophisticated, uneducated, non-critical thinking types. Now that is more accurate

            1. Wayne Brown profile image88
              Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just where might be that "over-whelming" evidence to which you allude?

              1. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Far from being conclusive but here is a little bit of information  for you-

                Talk show host Michael Medved, has also been critical, calling them (birthers) "the worst enemy of the conservative movement" for making other conservatives "look sick, troubled and not suitable for civilized company."[190] Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has referred to them as "just a few cranks."[191] Paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer has dismissed the conspiracy theories, saying,

                Of course he was born in Hawaii ... The idea that his heavily pregnant mother ... would get on an early 707 and fly at great expense to some foreign country is ridiculous – especially the popular theory that he was born in Kenya. Do you know how many different flights she would have had to take to get to Kenya in 1961?[192]

                An editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin dismissed the claims about Obama's eligibility as proposing "a vast conspiracy involving Obama's parents, state officials, the news media, the Secret Service, think-tanks and a host of yet-to-be-uncovered others who have connived since Obama's birth to build a false record so that he could eventually seek the presidency 47 years later."[193] The St. Petersburg Times' fact-checking website, PolitiFact.com, concluded its series of article on the birth certificate issue by saying:

                There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic. And that's true no matter how many people cling to some hint of doubt and use the Internet to fuel their innate sense of distrust.[194

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ms. Durham, President’s Obama is an American citizen and his birth certificate was authenticated by the Republican governor of Hawaii. It is also a sad reflection on the education of those folks that need to be reminded that the family roots of most Americans were transplanted from foreign soil. About 40% of all Americans alive today had at least one ancestor who passed through Ellis Island. President Ronald Reagan called his visit to Ballyporeen a "coming home."

      “I know at last whence I came. And this has given my soul a new contentment. And it is a joyous feeling. It is like coming home after a long journey.” Ronald Reagan, Remarks to the Citizens of Ballyporeen, Ireland (June 3, 1984){1}

      "I want to drink a cup of tea to all those Kennedys who went and all those Kennedys who stayed." John Kennedy while visiting his ancestral homestead at Dunganstown, Ireland, in 1963. {2}

      Please tell us, Ms. Durham, from whence came your ancestors?
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5863
      {2} http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 461115.stm

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't matter where my ancestors were from!   I don't know, and I don't need to know.    All I need to know is that I'm an American citizen by birth, and so were my parents.   Wherever their parents came from isn't an issue here;  whatever that place is...isn't my homeland;   America is my homeland.
        The issue here is that any American President should be born on American soil, and I believe the Constitution says their parents should be born on American soil.   That's a totally possible rule to adhere to.    The first few Presidents may not have been able to adhere to that, given the time frame of the foundation of this Country, but it is definitely easy to follow now, and has been for a long time.   The first explanation in the Constitution was only put there in order to cover the situation since America was a newfound land, and the first President(s) couldn't necessarily claim America as their parents' original homeland of course!  There is NO excuse for the controversy about Obama's birth.   Since citizens have been put in a position of uncertainty about this all along, Obama should've taken that into account and even disqualified himself from the position since he couldn't definitively prove his heritage.    This is not an issue of little importance, it's a huge issue.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Indeed, as he was born in Hawaii just a few years after it became a state.

          Oh, how wrong you are.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-b … zen_clause

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Ms. Durham. Thank you for your comments. They are always provocative if not accurate.

          There is no real issue here except in the dim lit corners of some minds. Barrack Obama was born on American soil and this fact has been proven.

          Please allow me to cast enlightenment where now none exists. The requirements for the office of president are in the Constitution. I encourage you to read it before advocating changes, to educate yourself about what is written there, and to stop making false statements about what is not. It does not say parents should be born on American soil. Good golly, Ms. Durham, there is no valid reason to deny any American citizens a government job because their parents were not born in the US.  Once again, Ms. Durham, your personal inability to cope is not an issue for the country, only for you. There is no uncertainty among nearly all that listened to the truth and examined the evidence. Hence, there was not much uncertainty about his eligibility the second time around. He definitely proved his citizenship, met the requirements of the Constitution, and was duly elected twice by the people of the United States. There is no reason he should have been disqualified just to salve the wounded egos of sore losers. The only issue that is really and truly huge today is how some can not accept what is, can not let go of their anger over what they can not change and, most importantly, can not share the helm of state for four years with those having a different vision.

          This country has been blessed with a lesson in social justice. It must be hard for those not emotionally prepared. A boy from a racially mixed marriage rose to be the President of the United States. More than half the country’s electorate stepped forward to galvanize the event and they came back four years later to do it again! Some of those struggling with this reality keep looking for excuses to prove he is not qualified for the job. They deny all of the proof and they live in fear that every measure of his success will shine like a beacon on their own inability to adjust to changing attitudes, changing times, and the changing skin tones in this country.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            1. Ouch! smile
            2.  As I'm sure you know,they're already getting a jumpstart on the pre-disqualification of Hillary Rodham Clinton. And once again, it involves a birth certificate!
            It seems Mrs. Clinton is TOO OLD to be president!
            Dare one point out she will be the exact same age in 2016 as the right's beloved icon, Ronald Reagan?
            lol

          2. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This has nothing to do with Obama's skin color, except in HIS own mind and the minds of liberals who accuse conservatives.   HE is the one, and liberals are the others, who made an issue of his skin color.

        3. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Seriously, Brenda, what is this all about? Your position on this topic that you created has been broken into shards by every reasoning person on this thread.

          In my endless quest to try to understand the reasoning of the rightwinger, who wrap themselves in falsehoods and suggestions that they could never prove, I ask what would a Durham America look like?. Your remedy to your dissatisfaction with the current administration seems like an exclusive remedy for Obama and not so much reform of the political system in general. After all, it was you that said that GW Bush was a gift from God. Is it as the president once quoted regarding rightwingers "Flat Earth Society"

          Is it hatred of President Obama? What is it that drives the madness that so many of your ideological stripe seem to have? You are losing on all fronts, how does this attitude and others like it going to promote your cause in the future? Do you want your ideas to find success in the arena of public opinion or will you folks cling to your position regardless of the political cost?

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not sure if this is Biden or Obama quote, but it's spot on.
            "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

            You'd have more luck trying to understand the reasoning of a three-year-old having a tantrum, Credence!

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              MM, it all seems so futile, so useless. You gotta be just a little S&M to volunteer to feed oneself to the wolves. Where are her allies in the time of her distress?

            2. gmwilliams profile image86
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ooooouuuch, so ON TARGETas usual, MM and Credence!  Hit it and leave, the truth is so SUCCINCTLY ACCURATE.  PREACH IT and MOST IMPORTANTLY, PREACH ON!  Progress, liberality, and enlightenment is LOST on some people.
              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8188546_f248.jpg

              They prefer to live in an earlier era, modernity has such a negative impact........They are afraid of and threatened by modernity, so they retreat from it and vicarously live in more olden times where "everything is so succinctly beautiful and correct".

              1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Love the picture!

                But was it really that great?
                We weren't even there.
                Those nostalgizing it weren't there, either.

              2. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The problem with the rightwinger is that the nostalgia for a past era  that they constantly speak of and long for, never really existed even 'back then'

                There is no such thing as the good ole days, and any  period that  could be considered that is always relative.

                As a group terrofied of change, no matter in what era is defined as the 'present' they will always express fond rememberence of what went before.....

                1. gmwilliams profile image86
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  However, the olden days were not as good as they would love to believe.  In fact, the olden days could be and was quite horrific to many people, particularly those which a society and/or culture deemed to be outsiders e.g. racial/ethnic minorities, women, and LGBT people.  Oh, how some people "FORGET" or REFUSE to remember.
                  http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8191883_f248.jpg
                  The "good" olden days to some people, horror, discrimination, and outright prejudice for others.  To reiterate, some people elect to close their eyes, not facing the reality of the situation at hand.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8191901_f248.jpg
                  Some people just DON'T seem to understand that progress and change is an integral part of societal growth and/or evolution.  They are AFRAID, very, very afraid that the future is "destroying" their way of life.  They want and yearn for the "comfort" and "security" of the past where everyone had his/her certain societal place. For them, the future means equality and meritocracy and simply THEY CAN'T GO FOR THAT.

                  1. Credence2 profile image84
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks, Grace

                    Conservatives always speak to me of the 1950's when everything in America was perfect, that sense of good feeling ended on November 22, 1963.
                    Frustrations postponed during the 1940's due to war and conflict, unaddressed grievances were going to get addressed sooner rather than later.

                    The fifties were actually a pressure cooker just about to explode, the modern civil rights movement, Betty Friedan etc.Everybody according to the rightwinger back in those good ole days seem to know there place and the underdogs were patted on the head and told to be patient as things were going to get better in time, in THEIR time according to the 'establishment'.  Those in the South complained about a change in their way of life that as it oppressed their fellow citizens in the region. Seeds were being sown for the emerging counter culture that was right around the corner in protest to the 'man in the grey flannel suit'. Things were rumbling, it was the calm before the storm, a false sense of peace and security based on the foot on someone elses neck which was not going to continue nor be sustained. We were happy with I Love Lucy and the hula hoop and chose to ignore the rumble under the surface until it exploded in the 1960's and could be ignored no longer.

                    As a progressive, I loved the the 1960's.

          2. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know about the entire conservative part of society, but I personally will indeed cling to what's right,  at whatever political cost.

            And you assume too much when you say my position has been "broken to shards"!    Where the heck would you even get that idea?    You and others on the Left have TRIED to break it to shards, but you haven't succeeded at all, and never will.

            I'll tell you what's wrong here.   You persist in thinking it's okay to insult conservatives;  you call them (us) names and refer to us as "Flat Earth Society"!     And you want to refer to our "madness"??!!    What the heck?!     Conservatives act and talk much more sanely than any liberal.
            Has your Party no common decency or sense of manners?    It is NOT okay to insult conservatives.    Yet you keep trying.    Are you just following your icon Obama, who set the whole tone of his "Presidency" by cutting down conservatives and Christians,  AND white people in general!?    WHO are the real haters?-------I'll tell you who they are-------they're people like Obama,  who spout prejudiced stuff and accuse anyone who's against his agenda as being racist and homophobic and anti-liberty.    Actually,  conservatives have given way too much liberty to the Left.   It is NOT okay to cover hatred for Christians and other conservatives under the guise of freedom of speech.

            The Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see how the Left is trying to use and abuse the Constitution.
            And I think, and I hope, that the Left is sadly mistaken if they think Christians and other conservatives are just gonna roll over and play dead just because liberals keep attacking them in droves.


            The FACT is that any person who refers to any other Country besides the USA as his or her "home Country"  is not eligible legally nor socially nor mentally nor personally nor politically for the Office of the President of the United States.

            What, you ask, would a "Durham America" look like?
            It would look like sanity and patriotism had returned to America.  It would look like people actually respected the lives of babies, unborn and born.    It would be an America where women are feminine and men are masculine and aren't forced to condone stupidity and liberal fearmongering.   It would be an America where people had guts like the Egyptians do,  and weren't ashamed to correct their wrongs.   It would be a place where people respected everyone else for the sake of their personal status as human beings and for their souls,  but aren't required to condone immorality and prejudice being made into law.   It would be a place where tyrants are afraid to rear their ugly heads because they'd know America isn't gonna tolerate their bullying, whether it's "soft" or not.   It would be a place where people from other Countries aren't welcomed with open arms unless they actually show good intentions in coming here,  being vetted enough to be assured they're not gonna be sleeper terrorists or liberal activists who cut down the very foundation of my Country.   It would be a place where right is called right and wrong is called wrong because we all know what those terms mean.   It would be a place where conservatives actually feel free to stand up for themselves,  like I just did by calling you out on your insulting references about me.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Forced gender roles? Homogenous state-sponsored religion? Totalitarian control over everyone's lives?

              I think I know just the man you're looking for. He's quite a charismatic fellow--a devout Catholic, actually--and he adheres to every major Conservative belief you do. I believe his name is Adolf...something-rather, but I know you two would just hit it off.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you have a problem with genders?
                There are two separate genders, ya know (barring those few incidents where people are born with abnormal parts, etc.;  in which case, they have a personal issue to deal with, and I wish them all the best in doing so).
                Why do you have a problem with the way mankind was created in two separate genders?
                And you can stuff your rotten insinuations about any comparison to Adolf Hitler, unless you'd like to claim that for yourself, because it's you who is bullying me, not the other way around.   I could tell you who you'd hit it off with, but I will refrain since I choose to actually respect people as humans.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't say Hitler.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    lol
                    By your description I thought you were going to say Rick Santorum.
                    But as to Adolf, there aren't too many other known Adolfs out there.
                    And of the ones there are, almost all would be disqualified for consideration.
                    Nobel prize winners in scientific endeavors? For an avowed Christian conservative?

                    *shudder*

                    Celebrities with the baby name ADOLF:
                    ■ADOLF HITLER, former Chancellor and Fuhrer of Germany
                    ■ADOLF FRIEDRICH JOHANN BUTENANDT, Nobel Prize Winner, Chemistry 1939
                    ■ADOLF OTTO REINHOLD WINDAUS, Nobel Prize Winner, Chemistry 1928
                    ■ADOLF BACHMEIER, professional soccer player
                    ■ADOLF BORN, artist (painter)
                    ■ADOLF EICHMANN, Criminal
                    ■ADOLF HöLZEL, artist (painter)
                    ■ADOLF LOOS, Architect
                    ■ADOLF MEYER, Psychiatrist
                    ■ADOLF VON BAEYER, Chemist
                    ■ADOLF WILHELM DANIEL VON AUERSPERG, former Minister-President of Austria


                    Celebrities with ADOLF as a middle name:
                    ■HANS ADOLF KREBS, Nobel Prize Winner, Medicine 1953
                    ■EMIL ADOLF VON BEHRING, Nobel Prize Winner, Medicine 1901
                    ■RICHARD ADOLF ZSIGMONDY, Nobel Prize Winner, Chemistry 1925

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hi, Ms. Durham. I hope you had a pleasant Fourth of July.

              It is sometimes difficult for me to hear people praise the Constitution, our democracy, and the rule of law in one post and then see them trash all three in another.

              They think the Constitution’s protection of free speech should be rewritten to curtail words and opinions that offend certain groups. They would have some groups declared more eligible for special status and preferential treatment than some other groups.

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              “It is NOT okay to cover hatred for Christians and other conservatives under the guise of freedom of speech.”

              Even though we both may cringe, expressions of hatred are protected by the Constitution as long as they do not incite violence. Sadly, some would change this in the pursuit of a conservative agenda.

              How often have we read “Christians and other conservatives” as if these two groups are mutually inclusive! The existence of a liberal Christian appears to be incomprehensible to some. “The defining idea of liberal Christianity,” observes the NY Times, “ — that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion — has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right.” {1}

              Okay, I suggest the notion that freedom of speech should be modified to protect the sensitivities of conservatives is just another anti-Constitution shard. 

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              "And you assume too much when you say my position has been "broken to shards"!"   

              My grandparents emigrated from Poland and I say when discussing ancestries I am Polish. Should that bar me from ever occupying the oval office? It is even more absurd to claim that the President of the United States is not eligible for the office because of a speech by his wife, who, by the way, was discussing AIDS. {2}

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              “The FACT is that any person who refers to any other Country besides the USA as his or her "home Country" is not eligible legally nor socially nor mentally nor personally nor politically for the Office of the President of the United States.”

              You should know that “nor socially nor mentally nor personally nor politically” are not factors that legally determine a president’s eligibility. There are only three requirements to be president and Barack Obama meets all three. {3} Once again, it seems some will disregard the Constitution if they object to a duly elected administration.

              The anti-Constitution shards keep coming. These same folks disregard the Constitution when they advocate and praise the violent overthrow of a legitimate US government by military force.

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              “An America where people had guts like the Egyptians do, and weren't ashamed to correct their wrongs.”

              The founding fathers learned from the heated debates preceding the Constitution. They made sure that “differences of opinion” or “objections to general policies” could not be used to replace a president. {4}

              For very good reasons, these same Americans would deny access to America to immigrants that are found not to have “good intentions” or that are “sleeper terrorist.” (Perhaps this could be accomplished by adding two more check boxes on their visa applications. smile) At the same time, however, they would also eliminate immigrants who are liberal activists with political views opposed to far right conservatives.

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              “People from other Countries aren't welcomed with open arms unless they actually show good intentions in coming here, being vetted enough to be assured they're not gonna be sleeper terrorists or liberal activists who cut down the very foundation of my Country.”

              They honestly believe others are deaf, dumb, and blind; not able to see the actions of true conservatives; or inept at interpreting their words. Only conservatives, they contend, can understand the true goals of other conservatives. 

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              “I doubt you even know what a conservative is, because your posts always indicate a discrepancy, a contradiction, of that term and the true definition of it, and of other terms.”

              Finally, this is where it starts to become scary. Some conservatives, acting as the collective “we,” would define what is “right” and what is “wrong” for every other American in the country.

              Brenda Durham wrote:
              “It would be a place where right is called right and wrong is called wrong because we all know what those terms mean.”
              roll
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opini … .html?_r=0
              {2} http://youtu.be/6M7Rp_Ghv6k
              {3} http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
              {4} http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f … ution.html

              1. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Quill, I was going to take on Brenda and her comment, but you have said what I was intending to say quite well. I would sure like to get into her head as to how the Christian right is being played upon, besides the leaps of illogic she provides here. Yes, flat earth is correct, the president has been vetted for the constitutionally mandated eligibility requirements for holding the office and somehow Brenda, Rush Limbaugh and the ridiculous Donald Trump  has discovered the truth that seems to have escaped  all the rest of us. Total insanity..... Thanks again.

                Brenda, if you want a direct answer from me on your comments, don't hesistate to ask. For, it is only the Right that exists on intimidation and fear mongering!

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  My posts stand as I said them, and they are correct.
                  You can continue to revel in your accusations of me and of conservatives in general, by calling us "insane" or whatever.    But you would be wrong.  Well, indeed, you are wrong.
                  Try looking past your own bias before you judge conservatives and Christians.   Try going by the definitions of those two terms, even, and you might get a clue as to what's "in the heads" of us.   Right now, it appears that you are only pretending to be interested, only pretending to listen.
                  So it is what it is.
                  I'm not gonna post another explanation,  since it isn't needed.   My words are truth.   And when it comes to the definition of what a Christian is,  the truth is that there is no such thing as a "liberal" Christian, at least not for long;  because a Christian will go by the Bible as he/she matures, and they will follow the conservative doctrine that that Holy Bible contains.

                  There ya go, Quill, too.    The only explanation I'm gonna offer,  because the rest has already been covered in my previous posts.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, okay.

                    Christians: Followers of Christ who devote their lives to God, Jesus, and the Bible.
                    - Invisible men in the sky, wildly-exaggerated prophets, and ancient books of fairy tales! Oh my!

                    Conservatives: Those whose political ideology involves a preservation of the status quo or total social regression through use of fear tactics and/or military might (e.g. Neo-Nazis, Capitalist purists, theocrats, super-wealthy businessmen).
                    - There's really no way to pretty that up, is there?

                  2. Credence2 profile image84
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "My posts stand as I said them, and they are correct."

                    I suppose that they are from a RIGHTWING PERSPECTIVE, and that is hardly universal point of view for many of us.

                    You accuse yourself, Brenda, anyone who continues to attack the president based on ideas clearly and continually proven to be false and incorrect by everybody is asking for it.

                    I will challenge anything you present fairly and honesty, are you willing to do the same with the other side?

                    On the contrary, I am very interested as to what drives you people to think you are right and have the right to dominate all inspite of popular support throughout the country to the contrary.

                    There is nothing wrong with being a Christian, but there is something wrong when I don't subscribe and you try to get me to comply with its doctrines, when I have the right and may choose to do otherwise. For example, what do you care if two men or two women marry and call themselves as long is it does not affect the nature and status of your relationship (hypothetical) with a significant other as a heterosexual.

                    I am in many ways just as conservative as you are, but there is a big difference between my  personal opinion on things verses the rights and perogative of others. The rightwinger have difficulty separating the two.

                  3. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you, Ms. Durham, for acknowledging my post. I understand that there is nothing to be gained by repeating what you have already said in previous posts.

                    I was hoping you would avoid religious issues and just address your numerous assertions that are in direct conflict with the US Constitution. I am trying to understand a viewpoint that advocates strict adherence to the Constitution on one hand and a willingness to ignore the Constitution on the other. Most notably, you would limit freedom of speech for some liberals and non-Christians because their views sometimes offend you. 

                    You praise the use of a military coup as a “recall system” to replace the US government. You wrote, “Unlike the American people, they've [Egyptians] got some guts and aren't afraid to correct their error; they’re not falling for the idea that once someone gets into power, there's no way of getting them out. Guess they've made good and quick use of the "recall" system that also needs to be in place here! {1}

                    Your words continue to advocate violating the Constitution and undermining democratic mechanisms to form a theocratic government that promotes Christian tenets and laws designed by hand picked verses from the new testament.

                    These are your own words. “The truth is that there is no such thing as a "liberal" Christian,” you proclaim, “at least not for long; because a Christian will go by the Bible as he/she matures, and they will follow the conservative doctrine that the Holy Bible contains.” {2}

                    In reality, such a government never existed in the USA, ever. Yet you imagine “liberal activists who cut down the very foundation of my Country” are destroying what has only existed in your imagination.

                    It follows that no Democrat and very few Republicans will satisfy your vision. Your view of a Christian nation is one that controls human thought and human actions. It is the mirror image of an Islamic state and neither can survive in the modern age.   
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114294#post2431476
                    {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2434990

                  4. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Brenda says:

                    "And when it comes to the definition of what a Christian is,  the truth is that there is no such thing as a "liberal" Christian, at least not for long;  because a Christian will go by the Bible as he/she matures, and they will follow the conservative doctrine that that Holy Bible contains".

                    Now that is a worry isn't it. Funny though as Jesus and the early church look more like socialists than the all American apple pie tea party.

      2. Wayne Brown profile image88
        Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So the governor of Hawaii is an expert in birth certificate confirmation...looks  more like a matter of authority than expertise.

    4. Moshka profile image61
      Moshkaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would take that literally however I don't think she even knows where she is from, after all she did say to an audience in Ireland "it's good to be home".

  2. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    And every president born before 1776 was born before the U.S. was even a thing, so their home country is Britain.

    1. Wayne Brown profile image88
      Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ...and that makes it okay to ignore the requirements two hundred plus years later?  What else are you willing to ignore...possibly the Bill of Rights?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually I wouldn't mind at all if that were gotten rid of, it's archaic and unnecessary and had it been followed some of our greatest presidents (like Jefferson) could never have been president. Several countries have leaders born elsewhere. Australia for example has it's head of state Julia Gillard who was born in Wales, far from collapsing and becoming a hellhole as a consequence it continues in the process of overtaking America in every politically relevant statistic known to man.

        It's downright moronic and scientifically false to believe that a person is intrinsically different based purely on where he emerged from his mother and thus the practice of giving any weigh to that belief is moronic and scientifically invalid.

        Also before you start with the oh so predictable slippery slope argument look up a list of known debate fallacies and search under slippery slope/appeal to probability and read it. Changing one law does not infer or imply the desire to change any others.

  3. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Wow...everyone should be so lucky as to have the governor of Hawaii authenticate their birth certificate.  What do you suppose that amounted to other a signature?  I seriously doubt the GoH would recognize a trumped up CoB even if it was his own.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I seriously doubt you would recognize a clearly obvious fact even if it bit you in the arse.

      1. Wayne Brown profile image88
        Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh...my bad...you liberal types find anything of a factual nature deplorable and highly inconvenient in the attainment of the end goal which appears to be dismantling the country, the Constitution, and anything that had to do with the Rule of Law.  It's all about tolerance and the elimination of accountability so why worry about any facts?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A birther talking about facts, oh the hilarity.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    This is conservative thinking exemplified.
    Make a big deal about something you know is not true. Let's call it Distraction A. (Birtherism)
    Try to get others to accept it as true.
    When they refuse to accept it, move on to distractions, B, C, D as needed (Benghazigate, IRSgate).
    When those "new" accusations don't stick, go back to Distraction A.

    It bears repeating here that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    ALL conservatives act and talk more sanely than ANY liberal?
    That is exactly the kind of hyperbolic, overstated and overly emotional statement that
    makes those of us who are not conservatives (and you don't have to be a "liberal" to fit into that category) scratch our heads. What the....?
    It exactly proves our point.
    You don't even know how crazy you sound to anyone outside the conservative asylum.



    We don't intend it as insult. Simply as statement of observed fact.
    As I see it the "movement" (because conservative does not equal GOP) doth protest too much.

    But speaking of insults... Check out these 33 quotes.
    More than a few from notable Republicans!
    Enjoy!

    http://www.criminalizeconservatism.com/ … crazy.html

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And your statements are, as always, confusing and confused.
      I doubt you even know what a conservative is, because your posts always indicate a discrepancy, a contradiction, of that term and the true definition of it, and of other terms.

    2. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      MM, I had to comment, the link you provide here was great and so appropo!!

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh yes indeed.
        I especially liked number 11,  the quote from Bill Clinton.......... sure does ring true (not!) from a man who, notably,  couldn't even define the word sex!   LOL.    And he is the kind of person that liberals admire and believe is smart?!!   Oh my.   The U.S. is in worse trouble than I thought, if they're actually believing anything Bill Clinton says!    Or his aggressive tyrannical wife!
        roll
        My God!   Looks like liberals will believe anything as long as it comes out of the mouth of a Democrat or Leftist of any ilk.
        lol

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          .I dunno, My favorite is
          “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
          ~William E. Gladstone

          In spite of what you say about Clinton,  he was a far better president than the man who succeeded him, GW Bush!

          I can say the same thing about the conservative who will believe anything that comes from the mouth of a Republican or Rightwinger of any ilk.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    This conversation reminded me of this book. I didn't read it, but saw a news story on it and it was horrifying. But enlightening.
    The whole "Christian" thing is a smokescreen by the power brokers.
    How sad to be so duped and not even know you are being so duped based on something
    you believe so faithfully.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Over-Re … 0670026263

  7. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    But how interesting to note the phenomenon of returning to this subject now.
    How many weeks has it been since anyone brought up IRS-gate and Benghazi-gate?
    Both of these were all-consuming topics (read: feeding frenzy).
    Where did all that "right"eous indignation and refusal to entertain evidence that didn't fit their narrative go?
    I guess Nature abhors an Obama conspiracy scandal vacuum.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Obama Administration has been one big scandal from its inception.   So all those topics are still around, don't worry!   And all the evidence does fit the narrative.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Apparently you have not been following the Issa embarrassment very closely.
        The evidence -- and there is a lot of it -- most certainly does NOT fit the narrative.
        Issa owes a lot of people apologies.
        We're not holding our breath, though.
        Just waiting till we can vote the a$$hole out of Congress.

  8. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    I'd link a Penn & Teller: Bullsh!t episode, but it's got boobs in it, so I probably shouldn't post it here. It's about the "Good Ol' Days," and it's extremely relevant.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'll watch it when I get the time. Thank you for posting.

  9. eorinda profile image60
    eorindaposted 3 years ago

    President Barrack Obama, son to Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya is one man that has made us proud even though he snubbed Kenya during his recent tour to Africa. We believe he's a Kenyan and that he will visit Kenya before the end of his second term in office as he had promised.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you believe he's a Kenyan?
      And why are you proud of him even though he snubbed you?

  10. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    "It is obvious that liberals don't want to criminalize the actions of the Westboro Church because then their own advocacy of indecency and harrassment from their own corner would be subject to criminalization.   So they lump both into the "free speech" zone."

    What? That makes no sense at all.

  11. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    Quilligrapher,
    there is one point where I can agree (predominantly agree, anyway) with your comparison of my view to the view of Islam, even though even this is not an exact "mirror image".........

    You said-----------

    "In this regard, your view looks very much like an Islamic State. The Prophet Mohammed “even went so far as to condemn the ‘appearance’ of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to ‘Turn them out of your houses.’" "{8}

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2435973


    The Holy Bible speaks against the ways of the "effeminate",  yes, and against the actions of women who turn the use of their bodies into unseemly actions, yes.     I can provide Scripture for that,  but indeed I reckon there's no need, eh?
    However, I wouldn't go so far as to condone "cursing" them.   It is their actions that are accursed by God.   And I wouldn't advocate turning a teenage child or someone out of my house unless that person were rebelling at my authority as the owner of the house and thereby bullying me,  or sullying their lives and mine by engaging in immoral words and actions or harrassment that causes chaos and disrespect in my home.     As far as any visitors who would come into my home and cause issues by spouting crap and/or trying to influence someone else into that crap,  or even deliberately giving the appearance of outright immorality, then I'd have a perfect right to "turn them out",  and indeed would do so.


    As far as the other points you've made,   I rather think that the burden of proof is up to you to prove that my views are "mirror images" of Islam,  instead of me being put on the defensive and having to prove that they're not!    (You see, I may not be the most experienced at debate tactics,  and I use my own ways which are direct and in layman's terms and very easy to understand,  but I can tell when someone's trying to put me on the defensive about something they themselves stated!)   
    So......your input is required here.   I may have stated the intention to "examine those similarities",   but it is up to you to prove your accusation.

  12. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    Quilligrapher,

    by the way,  here's some info that I pulled up--------
    from this site---
    http://www.ncccusa.org/interfaith/facts.htm
    .........

    "Muhammad was born in the year 570 C.E. Muslims believe that, when he was 40, the angel Gabriel appeared to him in a cave where he was meditating, and, over the next 23 years, revealed to him messages from God. These messages were compiled into the Qur’an. Muslims do not regard Muhammad as divine with God, but as the last of the prophets. Muslims believe that the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus were true prophets, but in Muhammad the prophetic tradition was perfected."


    So Muhammad wasn't even born until 570 years after Christ was born.    And he made a religion from just his own personal supposedly-inspired meditations.   Not from nor corroborated by any other prophets including the Prophets in the Holy Bible,  just his own personal musings.    In that way,  Islam is similar to some "Christian" sects like Mormonism (Latter Day Saints),   (and even the Apostolic denomination believes there are "modern-day prophets", as does Catholicism believe that the Popes' words are infallible),  but in reality those views bear no "mirror image" to basic Christianity which considers only the Biblical prophets as having the divine inspiration directly from God to write Scripture.     Many of the disciples/prophets in the Bible actually literally walked with Jesus here on earth.    Muhammad did not,  and his musings have no verification from anyone else.    He created,  or else his followers created,  a whole different religion from just his word.    Well, indeed, it is his word against the legitimate Word of God.    So much for Islam's claim to their "ancient manuscripts" being Holy!     Guess which wins out.    So, no, there's no mirror image there;   only a distorted image drawn by a man,  not by Jesus the man & the God who directly, as well as through His Spirit, gave the Biblical prophets their words.

    And while there are some similarities in "politics" drawn from the Bible that correlate with Islam's view in some ways,  my view follows the Bible as the inerrant word of God,  with Jesus being God (not just a "prophet" on the same scale as Muhammad which the Q'uran proposes in direct opposition to what the Holy Bible says),   so my view isn't a mirror image of Islam at all.


    Another point debunked.
    Your turn to try to prove the mirror image of the Holy Bible which a Christian like me follows,  to the Q'uran (or however it's spelled).........

 
working