A military coup has taken the Muslim Brotherhood's man Morsi out of action, apparently. While I dunno the whole story yet, at least it's obvious that Egyptians aren't afraid to correct the wrong done when they elected a Muslim Brotherhood member to lead them! I figured they'd realize their error sooner or later. Unlike the American people, they've 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!
Happy Independence Day to Egypt! lol.
While we still sit here under the "soft" tyranny of Barak Obama.
ITT: Brenda advocates the assassination of our President.
NSA, I know you're reading, so go ahead and report this to whomever is relevant.
Where did I say anything about Morsi being assassinated? NOWHERE. They arrested him, and are rounding up his minions. What do you have against THE PEOPLE taking back their Nation, either in Egypt or in America? Where did I say anything about assassinating Barak Obama? NOWHERE! So stop jumping the gun and get a clue as to what American citizens' freedom is about. I'll tell you what it ISN'T about-----it isn't about falsely accusing American citizens like me. Are you one of those people who think it's okay to target conservatives and try to take their rights from them? It's lookin' that way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't your lot believe God chooses the President?
Are you saying you want to oppose the will of God? How devout of you.
I thought the President was man made? From the socks he wears on a certain day to what he utters and writes in his oval office. Same as any of the new polished professional political breed of any country.
My "lot"? You mean Christians, correct?
In Bible days, there was a system of Kings ruling, and yes, the Bible says to submit to them, assuming they're for the good of the people. They had all the power back then; people had to submit to that authority sometimes.
No, I don't believe God chooses the President. At least not Obama. I think He answered prayers when America chose George Bush, yes. And I think He ALLOWED America to put Obama in, because people were hollering for a "King" instead of using their own rights and common sense. Just as He allowed the people to have their King in the Bible when they wanted to be "led" by someone, anyone, since they didn't have the guts to lead themselves.
In Bible days, there were actually Kings, rulers, and that was the system. In some ways, that was needed, because life was hard and there needed to be some high authority that encompassed whole huge areas of living. Even though it was tyranny, it was what was in place then. And people had to render unto Ceasar what was his, and protect their own lives and their families' lives by submitting to the King.
America doesn't have a King. So we have the right to choose who leads us. And we should have the right to "depose" those who would be King instead of public servants paid with the hard-earned money of the citizens.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: Confirmation Bias at its finest!
George W. was the result of answered prayers? What? What kind of sick, perverted mind would pray for God to inflict that disease on us?
Was it you? Well, then, thanks for the Patriot Act, 3 money-sinking wars, and countless dead Iraqi women and children, I guess.
"I think He answered prayers when America chose George Bush, yes."
You can't be serious, either you are jesting or demented! What sort of rock do you all crawl out from under? If there are a lot of people who think like you in Texas, I am glad I don't live there!
you are <personal attack removed> she never said that she said we need to do what they did and use the legal way and remove this garbage barry sotoero adolph, barak, whatever his name is and the rest of his treasonist administration.
The legal way to remove a president is through impeachment, and you need to actually have an impeachable offense to put forward.
Gathering a mob of policemen to assault the president is illegal as hell.
i was right the first time you are not only <personal attack removed> but also a <personal attack removed>.
to attack Brenda and accuse her of saying something she did not say is slander, maybe she should sue you, thats a language you people understand.
You have no clue what the constitution says. Yes we have over 100 charges of treason for which he should be executed. and yes the military is sworn to remove any one, president or any other that tries to subvert our constitution. constitution.
Thats what YOU say Celefoe, If Obama has 100 cases then Bush had 500, what were you saying about him? Rightwingers continue to make me sick to the stomach...... You will continue to lose with the MAJORITY of the ellectorate and I am delighted at the prospect
You should get a barf bucket. Ask the Left for one, if they have any remaining that don't contain aborted baby parts.
I wonder what the results would show if every woman leaving an abortion clinic was surveyed for their political persuasion. I'll wager that both lefties and righties have abortions in equal numbers.
And probably as many lefties as righties are opposed to abortion as a form of contraception.
So really Brenda is just indulging in a hate rant?
I don't imagine women in that situation are thinking much (read: at all) about their political identity.
Yeah, Zelkiiro is in attack mode; been that way for a while.........as long as I can remember actually....
Defense is for the weak. A good offense is the best defense. And the best offense. And the best everything. Screw the Defense and Magic Defense stats, I'm maxing out my Attack stat.
If life were an RPG, I'd be the guy running out into the front lines dual-wielding massive axes while wearing a bathrobe.
He calls her an idiot and you say she is in attack mode?
So you are celebrating the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government by non elected forces. Hmm just shows how much of a tyrant you are at heart.
BTW that was not the Egyptian people just the Egyptian military.
you need to study the constitution your ignorance is showing. Our military is also sworn to protect our constitution not the president.
The pathetic truth is that the American People only get to choose from the slime the two parties offer in their ever present control of the country. Where we the people go wrong is by continuing to support the parties in their corrupt rule over us. We love to get side tracked with the social issues that have very little to do with the wealth that changes hands and the control it wields over us. We slept while we gave away our jobs to the Chinese and wonder what in the world could ever be wrong with supporting the Walmart , Kmart or Target business model. We don't think about the consequences of our greed and the problems that arise from them because it takes a little courage and thoughtful cooperation between ourselves.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is our only hope. Where do you think congress and the rest of the slime stand on that?
Not just term limits. We need to instill a recall law. Obama would've been gone a long time ago if America had a system to recall an elected or appointed Official when they show themselves to be unfit.
We also need some sort of system where each Party is actually held to vetting its Candidates properly before they can nominate them as Candidates.
He hasn't shown himself to be unfit. Rick Perry on the other hand...
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
Oh dear Brenda. God doesn't like you bad mouthing his servant Obama that he placed in authority over you.
Those verses are given with the assumption that any common-sense reader will know to obey authority when authority is righteous.
You might want to read some other verses too, just so you can get an over-all picture of the proper actions by authority figures and government.
Acts 5: 27--32:
"And when they had brought them, they set them before the council, and the high priest asked them,
Saying, 'Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.'
The Peter and the other apostles answered and said, 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins,
And we are His witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him."'
By your "rules, the high priests were in authority, and according to you were "chosen by God"..........but indeed the followers of God recognized that the high priests weren't doing good, and they told them about the much higher authority------Jesus Christ, who we are to follow instead of just bowing down to every person who's been put into a position of earthly authority.
Ya know, people like you would really learn a lot if you'd actually read the Bible instead of picking out verses that you can try to beat Christians over the head with. But you don't. Which is why I'm thinking I'll agree with those Christians who I've heard say that the Bible is meant for Christians, not for sinners, to interpret. Because non-believers will try to twist it into things that are unseemly and unGodly.
Paul was talking about secular government, the letter was addressed to the Romans, there's a clue there.
It's funny you call me a sinner and an unbeliever because I don't agree with your right wing tea party Christianism. I bet you cannot conceive that a socialist Christian is possible.
Depending on when that recall law was enacted, there would have been several presidents that would have been recalled when they made a decision what was unpopular. the office of the president would be one huge revolving door and as such really have no power
There could be a balance, I have no doubt.
If the President knew it could turn into a "revolving door", maybe he'd actually show responsibility and transparency.
I'm much more scared of being tyrannized than of a "revolving door".
Obama has already lowered the bar for the Office anyway, so low that it wouldn't make much difference if it was a "revolving door"-------maybe one of the Candidates would actually BE the servant of the American people that they're supposed to be.
You present an interesting point, but what if another country decides to take advantage of the chaos and instability of a revolving door leadership to attack us? without a firm commander in chief, too many different orders are coming down.. Very unstable
Sheesh. With the lack of communication already between Obama and the citizens, between him and the other Government offices, with his mantra of claiming to not know what's going on anywhere at all when it suits him, what difference would it make anyway!?
The difference it makes is that there is one figurehead. that mantra is actually useful too because you never know if he's faking or if he's real. That unpredictability is both a good thing and a bad.
Not the way I see it.
I think other Countries, as well as America's citizens, respect strength of mind, military strength, and personal straightforwardness from an American President.
We're not talking about secretive operations of the military or the FBI or etc. here. We're talking about transparency and focus from the highest Office in the land. There shouldn't be any wavering in that.
I don't know if there should be an instantaneous way of removing a questionable official other than for treason and such. But a body politic that has had the pitfalls of bribery and public influence would be more like I am getting at to be treated to an exit out the door. The current congress and many before it have been entrenched through a system of corruption and greed that stymies the imagination. How can we expect a competent leader to arise from this slime pit of vipers with out having a good dose of the same slime on him or herself? There needs to be major reform in the way we elect our leaders and representatives. They believe they are there to get what they can and be re-elected plain and simple. What is so redeemable about being the longest serving member of congress? I think of it as a FAILURE of the system to test and introduce new ideas!
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is our only hope.
I know what you mean about Officials become sullied through government. But the "government" is supposed to BE people, is it not? So it's those people who bring the "slime" into it.
I've been told that it's practically impossible to be a member of the Government without being corrupt in some way. I....have my doubts about that, actually. I know the "Government" is big and there's a lot of things going on from every corner, but I have to ask WHY CAN'T there be an honest, transparent government?
I think you have good points about lobby reform, etc.....
If that were true, they could get rid of all the congressmen and women who are not doing what they were elected to do.
Obama just got an encore performance in the form of a second term.
I know that is really hard to wrap your head around.
But it's the truth of the matter.
correct we need to go back to the original use of the constitution
What, you mean when women didn't have the vote and weren't thought worthy of having the vote?
What say you Brenda? You for the original constitution?
I mean back when men were men and women were women.
When men took seriously and with much personal deliberation and thought their roles of authority in politics and as husbands.
When they didn't try to act feminine.
When women took seriously their roles as mothers and wives and were able to depend on men to behave in a masculine way.
When women didn't try to cross gender lines and behave in masculine ways.
Yeah, back when men weren't limp-wristed panty-waisted community organizers, and didn't try to cross gender lines, but were held to the authority they were given.
When women weren't whining about wanting to kill their unborn babies, but actually took Life seriously.
Gotta give you the keys to HG Wells', Time Machine and ask you to go back to the 18th or19th century where you seem to be more comfortable. I see why we are called progressives, the other side reminds me so much of whale bone corsets, powdered wigs and knee breeches.
Ouch, this is cracking me up! C'mon now Credence2, be nice to Brenda. We may NOT agree with her but she does have a right to her voice.
Sorry, I just said things that illustrate the point and make it more clear and vivid. While I might not agree with what the rightwinger may say, it would undermine my status a progressive, if I did not give Ms. Durham full berth to speak her mind.
Are you so snobbish that you don't realize that I think of "progressives" more as regressives? It isn't true progress at all to try to take us back to the days of earthly lawlessness and open rebellion at the laws of God. Progressives are trying to re-live the days of the old wild West before people started hiring Sheriffs to keep chaos from reigning ....Wait.......it goes back even further than that...........back to the days of Sodom.
So your mockery of me is very ironic and indeed misplaced. Conservatives are the true "progressives", but no way are we gonna even claim that title since the liberals have already twisted it into unrecognizeability and claimed it erroneously for themselves, just as they try to grab everything else too and make it only theirs, for their little group of political activists.
What you call the laws of God could be just the political perogatives of rightwing extremists, having nothing to with the Bible or anything else. The right are so easily duped by symbols used against them like this. We grab it and make it ours, because it belongs to us
Brenda, Donna Reed is dead and so is Sheriff Scotty.....
You have a right to your opinion, but we on the left have a right to ours as well, let see who prevails, shall we?
I already know who prevails. I've read the back of the Book.......
I am going to tell a modern day parable in kind:
Once upon a time in the long distant past, everyone seemed to be so happy. Everyone knew his/her place in relation to the majority societal construct.. Oh it was so simple and no drama. Everything was ah so so perfect. There was just a preordained and prescribed order to things. Gosh darn it, things were so much better this way. People knew where they stood-and they LIKED it! Conformity was so IN and CHIC. People had to conform as the worst thing was to be considered the "O" word-yes outsider. Yes, there were even worst words, weirdo and strange. One DIDN'T want to be considered THAT, oh my.
People who did not and/or refuse to conform were considered to be besides outsiders, the other "O" word-ODD. No one wanted to be odd. That meant being alone and excluded. So little Mary and Johnny were told that it is BEST to conform and to be homogenized. Yes, there were consequences in kind for those who knowingly refused to conform to the prevaling societal construct. Such consequences can be quite.........dire. So even if people wanted to be individualists, only a few BRAVE souls WERE SO, the rest meekly and/or reluctantly conformed rather than face stern societal disapproval......
Then people smartened up, they were sick of the monotonous conformity and the homogenized societal construct. They began to protest these inane and outmoded constructs. They saw the need for everyone to be equal, not just THE ELECT and CHOSEN. Equality for all was the mantra. Bit by bit, equality was going to be ushered in. Differences were to be acknowledged as part of the societal fabric. The homogenized construct of 1950s and 1960s were about to be PUT TO SLEEP.
As a result of people reaching intellectual maturity, people were starting to realize that America is a heterogenous society where arificial differences no longer seemed to matter. The main point is that people are people regardless and human potential is to be utilized to its highest. People started to be accepting and embracing of differences. Differences can be and are enrichening to humankind.
Now, it is 2013, the future is HERE whether one acknowledges and accept it or not. It really DOES NOT matter. Either one gets with the program or fall behind. Progress is ever ongoing. That is a part of life. Welcome to the future for it is the rest of our lives!
However, some people are QUITE AGHAST that the future is here and in full gear! They are threatened by the changing times and moreso the ever changing and evolving societal construct. Everything is changing oh so fast for them. They simply DON'T know what to do! Alas, so they pine, pine, PINE for the past where everything seemed so copasectic and ah wonderf-u-l. Where has that world gone. They are sobbing, sobbing.......ever so deeply. Where are the GOOD OLD DAYS. GIVE ME MY GOOD OLD DAYS......Alas, THEY ARE NO MORE, NO MORE........VANISHED INTO ETERNITY!
Credence2, you are right and I totally concur. As Dr. Phil has aptly said, there are THOSE who just don't get and never will in a thousand years. I refuse to argue with such people, it is POINTLESS. It is analogous to a Roman discussing the virtues of civilization and culture to a Hun! Some people speak their MIND, others speak their "mind". It is the last kind that really astound me with their 'thought" process or what they believe or perceive to be such.
You know, Credence2, there are FOLKS just can't, CAN'T be reasoned with, no matter how hard one tries. Best to leave them in their own world no matter how deluded it may be.
Don't you mean "when women were considered to be the property of their fathers until they married and then became the property of their husbands"?
Shush woman, hold your tongue or it'll be the big stick for you
Oh no you John Brenda is more backwards than that, the liberation of women and female rights is a bad thing as far as she sees it.
This is a dumb assertion, Brenda. If you don't like the current leadership you can elect to change it, or you can just leave the good ole USA!.
You rightwingers had a chance in 2012 to correct your error, but those of us on the left would not hear of it and you failed. Is it possible that we have a voice, as well. Don't wanna burst your bubble, but I forget that is where most of you live. So what are you advocating, insurrection against the will of the majority of the electorate?
So now you want to call my assertions dumb.
That nullifies any credibility your post might've had, including any assumption that you're unbiased, plus it makes me not even want to answer any questions you have. And I'm not gonna. Especially since all you have to do is actually READ my posts to know what I'm advocating and NOT advocating. LOL.
good luck Brenda, I am with you but have had all I can stand of wasting time with these fools., they have no desire for truth just want to cause confusion.
That is indeed the aim they have.
They pick a target, condemn it, take aim, and try to torture it as it dies.
Distraction from the real issues and the real perpetrators (which is often themselves!)
They're good at that.
Happy 4th to you celafoe! It's nice to converse with other level-headed people like you sometimes! Thank God there are people like you around!
I have read your posts, what are you talking about? The focus of your diatribe is to remove a president that YOU don't favor, it is partisan, political, unconstitutional and smacks of treason. The truth you and calafoe are speaking of is YOUR TRUTh and that, too, is relative depending upon your point of view.
Of, course you know that the President can be impeached and removed from offfice for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is nothing that this President has done that support such an action. If you can't answer my questions, that is ok, but don't use being indignant as an excuse...... Did not mean to bite ya....
So you think there should be a military coup to oust the President of the United Sates?
In my opinion, our process is what separates us from places in turmoil....like Egypt. If we are going to follow their lead, I think that would be going backward. You should have probably thought this through before you posted it.
In what way the American people's fate is different from the Egyptians'? If a government is not responsible of its people therefore it should be ousted. Will a referendum satisfy you if you are afraid of the coup? Or an impeachment? Cowards need euphemisms don't they or political correctness?
Can I remind you that Morsi was elected democratically, that he was asked by the people to leave and that he refused calling for repression and you are telling us that if it had to happen to us we would let us be killed? Yes, Egyptians have more guts. They are fighting for their rights as citizens against the abuses of their government. We should do the same. People are angry because Obama failed to provide what he promised. People are suffering and we are still waging wars against the world on our dimes.
I think one of the main objections of the Egyptians was that Morsi's Islamic Brotherhood wanted to turn the country into an Islamic state. It seems Brenda wants the US to turn into a theocracy too based upon her brand of Christianity. The end result would be the repeal of civil liberties of anyone who didn't follow the new laws based upon her interpretation of the bible. Religion and politics always leads to tyranny and oppression.
It's not a coup if the people ask for it......
Let me ask you something...
How do you in good conscience vote for a party that restricts your right to decide what to do with your body?
How do you in good conscience vote for a party that is willing to restrict the rights of others?
Also, you're not allowed to use the Bible to answer this question as religion has no place in government.
"How do you in good conscience vote for a party that restricts your right to decide what to do with your body?"
It is illegal to prostitute yourself! That is a restriction on what you can do with your body, as far as I know the democrat party agrees.
So, How do you in good conscience vote for a party that restricts your right to decide what to do with your body?
Having said that.
How do you in good conscience vote for a party that is willing to restrict the rights of others?
Abortion is legal as ruled by the Supreme Court
Therefore, it is your right to get an abortion.
Prostitution is considered a 10th amendment "states rights" issue.
I would also add that prostitution is legal in Nevada.
What difference does it make?
There are limits to what you can do with your own body, why shouldn't that extend to abortions?
Oh, wait, it does.
So if the government tries to restrict what you put INTO your body by, for example, banning
supersized sodas, you scream bloody hell.
But when it comes to restricting what comes OUT of your body -- and only women's bodies (you can bet your ass this would never be an issue if men got pregnant) you want the government fully in control
The irony is in closing down womens health clinics you cause more women to get pregnant.
Oh wait. Maybe that's what you really want.
More poor girls and women on welfare raising children in poverty so you can bitch about them.
A little hysterical today? Shaving 4 weeks off the abortion is going to cause what exactly? Have abortions been banned?
If a woman can't decide in four months weather to get an abortion or not then she has bigger problems than an unwanted pregnancy.
Careful, your ignorance is showing. Women have many reasons for making the difficult to decision to have an abortion, some of which include circumstances that cannot be known earlier in the pregnancy. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your commentary here, but you seem to think women are basing their decisions on mere personal whim as opposed to physical and environmental circumstances.
Careful, your ignorance is showing.
These are the reasons given for abortion.
Why do women have abortions? Most U.S. women cite more than one factor contributing to their decision to have an abortion: Almost three-quarters say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about three-quarters say they cannot afford to have a child; and almost half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
It seems that most have abortions for the inconvenience a baby may place on their lives.
Probably should have thought of that before the sex act!
And I would bet those are not the decisions being made at a later date.
Edited to add: So, in order to minimize a decision based on economics, which seems to be a reason cited most frequently, are you fully supportive of:
100% coverage for birth control, especially for women who cannot afford a child
Enactment of paid family leave laws and laws to forbid an employer from firing a pregnant employee.
Free paternity testing (for those whose father will not admit to parenthood)
Strict enforcement of child support laws in all states and swift retribution for deadbeat deads
Additional financial help for poor women who have children
what do you base that on?
The excellent decisions the woman has made up to that point?
You seem to forget it takes two to tango. Of course, one is left holding the bag, er, I mean baby.
But then, you are only a man, aren't you.
Thats hilarious, men are not allowed to make decisions, women have seen to that.
Your make believe war on women not withstanding.
So, ok LD, how do you make a woman carry a pregnancy to term if she does not want it, really? You just leave red neck states and go to any progressive state and have the procedure done. What the Right is engaged in here is an exercize in futility. What about the RU-486, or one could probably drink enough scotch and do the same. I don't think that women are willing to hangstrung because of the dearth of options that the righties propose.......
How about the woman not get pregnant in the first place, there are other birth control methods they can use you know.
You do know that right?
"How about the woman not get pregnant in the first place, there are other birth control methods they can use you know."
Yes, that is desirable in a perfect world......But of course YOU KNOW, that the world is anything but perfect, right?
Factions of the fascist right have put up quite a bit a resistance to contraception, I know that you have heard that as well....
There is NEVER going to be a national consensus on how to address the topic like you would find in Texas or the backwaters of the the South
The world is not perfect and women will have to make their minds up in 4 months now and not 5!
Insulting the South doesn't make you right it makes you petty!
Well, to be fair, he mentioned the "backwaters" of the south.
By the way, not that you would care, but there are sometimes legitimate medical reasons to terminate a pregnancy at 5 months that did not exist or were not known at 4 months.
How often does that occur? I guarantee most abortions are done because the woman would be inconvenienced with the birth of the child not for any supposed medical reasons!
Here are the class acts on your side!
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/02/hoes … ys-it-all/
" A gun is an inanimate object that hurts no one unless used by a human."
That is your perspective, that is your right but it certainly is not universally shared.
Like I said, that 20 week stuff is fine in the backwater, but it will never see the light of day in most of the country. That is something for you to ponder over.......
You know of guns that simply go off for no reason? You should video that and post it on youtube, it would probably go a long way towards the lefts assault on our second amendment rights!
Most of the country is in favor of a 20 week ban.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress … n-20130626
I think its time we stopped feeding the troll....
I think its time we stopped feeding the troll....
The south is too conservative and that puts in on the wrong track for this guy, but to each his or her own, however.
Why not change the choice from 5 months to 6?
Look, LD, I am not pro-abortion, but am the devils advocate here. I am pro-choice. Just like you rightwingers speak about guns all the time, any change toward control is the slippery slope, such is the case here!
Yes, you are pro-abortion, that is your right. A gun is an inanimate object that hurts no one unless used by a human.
Guess used to the idea of 20 weeks because its coming.
Dont go daft on me LD, we know the gun issue is far more complex than you present it. Most of us on the left have written good articles on the topic as to why we take the positions we do.
I saw the article, but it will be a cold day in hell, when the legislatures of Calif., NY or Ill, just to name a few will treat such a proposal as having any more significance than toilet paper. So the groups that are predisposed not to support the concept are heavily skewed in progressive states. So forget any constitutional or national approach.
+1.000,000,000,000,000-how oxymoronic, prolifers do not want girls and women to have abortions but to have unwanted children. Then when these unwanted children, who grew up abused and in poverty, mug them, these pro-lifers are the FIRST ones to cry for the death penalty! They are also the ONES who complain about their tax dollars going to support welfare programs which mostly comprise of aid to needy children. How paradoxically illogical is their premise indeed. Prolifers are really antilifers when one really thinks about it, hmmmmm...........
So... how many people have died because of guns since Sandy Hook? No one's guns have been taken away.
Hello Brenda, I know you have an interest to know more about Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and what they did in Egypt so i wrote an article about it check it out and i would like so much to know your opinion about it and if you liked it i will write another article about Obama and his close friendship with The Muslim Brotherhood that almost make Egypt fall in a deep dark hole only for his interests not caring about anybody nor the Egyptians or the Muslim Brotherhood interests thats why the Egyptian hated his policy with the Egyptians.
I'll be happy to read it and comment! Thanks.
Give me a while; I'm busy at home and just checked in here for a few minutes. But I will be back later!
Egpyt is smaller than Texas,.... and Texas still has Rick Perry
but Texas has cable TV and while we might march in the streets at a carefully timed and organized demonstration (mutual admiration party with adequate press coverage)..... we will still need to pick up a bucket of take out and get home in time to watch the next episode of what ever distracts the masses.
just sayin,.... land of the free,... home of apathy,.. from sea to shining televised sea.
Yes, it has become like that.
And that's only natural; we're human; we would like to rest a while and enjoy our freedom without having to stay on alert all the time.
But I think when push finally comes to shove, there will still be a large majority of Americans who will finally get off their couches and fight for the freedom we hold so dear.
Well, I said it's only natural. It has been, up til the last few years. It veered off onto fear and confusion and division, not knowing who's a patriot or not, even, when our own citizens started cutting down America. Hmm.........about the time Barak Obama started being groomed as a "King" to rule us all.
Barak Obama is meerly a symptom of a much bigger problem,... he is but one person in a long line of leaders since FDR to be in the white house durring the great transition from people to sheep,.... the only thing "natural" about it is the logical implosion of democracy when the people get the idea that they can magicaly get something for nothing. when the people fancy the idea safety more than they do liberty,... when they hold status quo more sacred than freedom,... then its NATURAL for the state to impeed the freedom liberty and very lives of a people who create the monster that will devour them.
and then, much like parasite that was once happily hosted by its victim until it destroys the victim,... the parasite will die with its host,... and the next host will rise up from the fertilizer created from death,...... meaning,.....
we, as a nation, have but a finite time to exist until we implode under the weight of the state we create,... then,... a new nation will rise from the ruins,.... and repeat the cycle,.... so far mankand hasnt learned not to REPEAT history.
will this happen in yours or my lifetime?.... probably not any more than it was suposed to have happened 20, 40 or 100 years ago,... but it WILL happen,.... will it be bloody chaos? or more of a leverage buy out?.... one never knows,.. mankind seems not to have outgrown its thirst for conquest, bloody or otherwise.
the only sure bet is that it WILL happen,... and 99.99% of all people caught up in the moment in time will be utterly powerless to change it,... only survive it,.... weather it be us or our great grandkids.
the key to succes is surviving the moment when it happens,... if we even recognize it when it does,.... i suspect that a great many of us will wake up one day and suddenly realize that it all changed over night,... 20 years ago.
Is Rick Perry the bad guy of the month for the left? I don't know much about him but the voters of Texas seem to like him, he is the longest serving governor of Texas ever.
Rick Perry is Captain Theocracy, and he won't stop until we're just like a Christian Saudi Arabia.
But he is losing popularity by the second, especially with women.
Because women need 5 months to decide if they want an abortion instead of 4 months?
How horrible for them.
Sometimes, the baby dies. You want women to wait 9 months to deliver? You might want to read up on that Irish woman who died.... it got the government to make abortion legal under circumstances such as that.
And that is not the whole bill he passed.... underhandedly. He would have kept trying until it passed even though most of the voters are against it. This will deny pregnant women health care by closing down most clinics, making it a lot harder for women who do not have money to get proper pre-natal care. I can bet you some will have late-term miscarriages because of this, I just hope no one dies.
"even though most of the voters are against it."
Not according to this.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress … n-20130626
The problem is not Obama but the people behind him that pull the strings, the lobbies, the elite. To believe that our president is omnipotent is a fallacy. Kennedy's death is the perfect example.
Brenda, I understand your statement, we, as the Egyptians need to clean up our government, our congress, our society from the people that are longing to enslave us, to reestablish infeudation.
Be steadfast sister - SECULAR MESSIAH'S MINIONS WILL EVEN GO AS FAR AS QUOTING SCRIPTURE TO JUSTIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DEEDS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY - I SURELY HOPE THAT HE IS NOT THE MODERN DAY PHAROAH ON ACCOUNT OF THE WOES THAT ARE GOING TO BEFALL US.
He's just a mediocre president that will be long forgotten once 2016 rolls around.
Verily Prime, my friend, yes, we will stay steadfast, with the help of the true Messiah Jesus!!
I will say this, however: If the next election is between Joe Biden and the same crop of GOP losers we had last time...
...I'll bet on Jon Huntsman until he is tossed out of the primaries for being the only sane person in the party, and then I'm hauling ass out of here, because that will truly be the end.
There's some frightening ideas presented here, of the kind which seem all too common in the west.
First, let me say that I'm certainly no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood. Religion should be kept out of mainstream politics and in the circumstances which exist in the Middle East, it's disturbing to see any non-secular party come to power. I would have fervently hoped to see their defeat in the next general election.
But that's the point. President Morsi and his party should probably have been removed at the next general election, NOT by the army responding to a protest by a minority of the population. I say probably because I am assuming that Morsi was elected in a free and fair election, and that he had every intention of calling another free and fair election when his time was up. If either of those assumptions is incorrect, then there is indeed a case for removing him by force. If however, neither of those assumptions are incorrect, then he should not have been removed in this way, and it is frightening how some seem to think that the President of the United States should be ousted in a similar manner.
That is crazy. Democracy is paramount. It must be protected and the Government elected must be allowed to run its course. To do otherwise is to set a precedent which when applied once can then be repeated for subsequent elected governments of whatever political persuasion. That way lies anarchy.
Too many people these days - even those in long established democracies who should know better - apparently believe that because they disagree with the government, they should have the right to remove it through protest or violence. They shouldn't. Any government which is elected in free, fair elections should have the opportunity to try to carry out its policies; if those policies are unpopular or unworkable, then the government should be ousted at the next election - not through street protests and military intervention. That's how democracy works, and I hope that's what's allowed to happen in Egypt after a return to civilian rule.
This is only their first election out of the chute.
We don't yet know if democracy is going to "stick" in Egypt.
In a perfect world I agree with all of what you said. Democracy should rule over the military and the overthrow of Morsi should have been at the ballot box and not the end of a rifle. From what I have read the constitution in Egypt is very flawed and needs to be amended to become a sensible and fair ruling document. Morsis' attempted decree of assuming powers above and beyond his office is what began this discontent. Should a corrupt and ascending dictator be allowed to run the country on a flawed document that he himself tried to circumvent? Was there too little time to establish a solvent government based on the Egyptian constitution? Was the Muslim Brotherhood poised to create another autonomous theocracy that would rule the other half of those that were defeated in the election? There are too many questions that are unanswered and have relevance to judge whether or not the military acted properly in restarting the process in Egypt. I think we shall have to wait and see if the military will influence elections and policy in the new government to judge what their role was and the propriety of it.
I can only agree. Military overthrow is not the "normal procedure" for any democracy. It might seem a good idea at the time but then you end up in an overthrow-reform-protest tailspin like Fiji. Real democracy uses protest in conjunction with leadership change within the party or election. And as a election was not overdue....
Eh, our first constitution didn't work out. I think we turned out just fine.
Hi I'm Hossam I'm Egyptian we isolated Morse from his position because this man promised us to much will be done in Egypt and he will rule the country by god's legislation and he will fix many broken things in Egypt in a few days , But it turned out that he was working and taking orders from his Community Muslim Brotherhood and this Community is Extremist in many actions and don't know a shit about god's legislation they were working only for themselves so he was isolated by the power of the Egyptian people not by overthrow.
Hi Hossam. Thanks for confirming that.
If you're for real, then it's really good to hear from an Egyptian about this!
Welcome to Hubpages.
Thank you Brenda and Iam for real , I'm 26 years old young Egyptian Citizen who living in a city in Egypt called Alexandria, I lived in Egypt all my life , I attended the past dark and bright days the 25TH and 30 of June Revolution, I would like so much to exchange Culture with you all and let you know better about Egypt and the Egyptian by facts . thanks for welcoming me.
It's cool to make contact with you.
I have a question, if you don't mind answering......?
In your first post, you said Morsi was supposed to rule by "god's legislation", but that he didn't do that. Can you tell me what that means? What's the main religion in Egypt? What do Egyptians consider "god's legislation"?
(I hope I spelled that right.......is it Morsi or Morse?
No matter what, I want to again congratulate you and the citizens for ousting Morsi. It's common knowledge that the Muslim Brotherhood is extremist, and it's sad that a man in that group was even able to get elected.
The main Religion in Egypt is Islam but we have Christians but the good Egyptian people love the Christians and cares about them like we care about Muslims and they have all the rights that we have in Egypt , God's Legislation is what god told us the Muslims to do and behave in our life and how we can judge the people who does awful crimes against us or the humanity it's the laws that God gave it to us , The laws that we should resort to it when we have a problem in our life , The laws that reviews the beauty of our Islam not by power or terrorist the innocent people but by tolerance and love to whole humanity and by this laws which is in our Holy Koran we can live in peace and love each other and extending in our Country because we believe that this laws is for all times.
that's God' legislation what Morsi promised us to be rolled in Egypt in good and proper way , We have here in Egypt Human Legislation is good and fair but not perfect because every human have disadvantages even the most fairest man or Community so some or few laws won't be perfect compared to God's Legislation but unfortunately Morsi put Religion as a mask to hide his true Intentions and his true Intentions appeared to us of course he was going after power to himself and his Community Muslim Brotherhood he only care about these two things not about the Egyptian people and interest of the Egyptians so he deceived us.
soon I'll write an article in the Hub pages about Muslim Brotherhood and their history in Egypt and how Morsi gain power and became a president .
and it's Morsi or Morse never mind ...lol
Yep, a leader is supposed to have the interests of the people on his agenda, not just his own personal desires nor the agenda of the few power-hungry people around him.
Name one leader who has not been for himself and his party?
Clement Atlee- but was for the party because it was worthy then.
But I bet there would be those who would disagree with you, like every tory.
It's not just for his Party. A tyrant is only for himself and his surrounding appointees. He simply uses the majority of whichever mindset he can use. He doesn't really care about the majority nor the minority of the people.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
From the time of President Obama's inception in the White House, it was his intention to change America into a "newer" version of America. He felt that that America as it was not in incongruence with what America should be. He believed that the Constitution was out of...
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
Read this article from the NY Times. It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded. Please share this with everybody you know. The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a...
by zzron 8 years ago
Maybe the word hate is a little strong. So why do people dislike President Obama and the way he is running the country? Are you an Obama fan? Yes, no, what is your opinion of Obama and his policies?
by ixwa 9 years ago
When was it that the American People have been so Angry at a President as they do President Obama?
by Rod Martin Jr 7 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4I supported...
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
I read this in my local paper yesterday. What do you think?Is "exceptionalism" a good word or a bad word?Does it describe what America was? What America is today?By Kathleen ParkerSunday, January 30, 2011 He didn't say it. That word: "exceptional." Barack Obama described an...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|