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

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (90 posts)

0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
http://youtu.be/6M7Rp_Ghv6k
reply report
1. 61
  Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  When will there be a native American Indian as president?
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *sigh* are there still people harping on about this well thanks, polls show that the birther movement has significantly upped support for Obama.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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.........
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You got something against people who live in trailer parks, do ya?
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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
  reply report
  80
  Wayne Brownposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Just where might be that "over-whelming" evidence to which you allude?
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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
  reply report
3. 73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin 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?
  
  {1} http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5863
  {2} http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 461115.stm
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  73
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  1. Ouch!
  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?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  73
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin 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.
  
  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".
  reply report
  73
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Love the picture!
  
  But was it really that great?
  We weren't even there.
  Those nostalgizing it weren't there, either.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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.....
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I, too, miss the 1960s, such a vibrant time. After 1969, everything seemed to be anticlimatic in some areas.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Noticing that you and I are contemporaries, you, as I may have observed that much of the spirit of what defined the "1960's" continued into the early seventies. I would say January, 1973, with Nixon ending the draft, removing the source of so much conflict, the Vietnam War, a new period with a new spirit, unique to itself, began.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say Hitler.
  reply report
  73
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  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
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin 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. ) 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.”
  
  {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
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but no thanks.
  When you say you will challenge anything I present fairly and honestly, I don't believe you.
  Your meaning is either that you will be fair and honest, which I don't believe, since you've proven already that you use personal insult tactics like mocking conservatives as though they're stupid (flat earth etc.), and calling me insane; or else your meaning is actually an accusation that I haven't already presented honest and fair views. Either way, your tactics don't lend themselves to fair and honest debate from your end of it.
  So this "rightwinger" doesn't have ANY difficulty separating personal opinion from the rights of others at all. The fact that you accuse conservatives of not being able to do that, is more evidence of your blind bias. I prefer to accept challenges from people who don't resort to generalizations and personal insults when their claims fall short; that actually would be a challenge worthy of accepting.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you will support challenges from people who believe as you do, which is no challenge at all.
  
  I don't find the term 'rightwinger' offensive, it is more descriptive of the nature of ultra conservative politics and those that adhere to them.
  
  Where do you people really get this Donna Reed vision of the world? If you keep believing things that has been universal disproven what else could you be except flat earthers. Who but the most stubborn would say that the sun revolves around the earth instead of the other way around. This is the kind of stubborness I speak of.
  
  Instead of avoiding be confronted, tell me how it is that the left is assaulting Christians? If we cannot confer, I just want the universe to know that I and my side are not the ones that run and hide when their concepts and ideas are put on the spot. How is gay marriage for those that want it a threat to Christianity, or is it just a threat to you?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There ya go, assuming that I find the term "rightwinger" offensive. I'm proud to be a Rightwinger.
  And there ya go again, pushing the flat earth accusation. THAT is offensive, and you know it, and you keep shoving it.
  You're not ready for a mature discussion about any of this.
  Ask me again in a couple years, maybe.
  Even liberals have the prerogative to change their minds when they've learned something, so I'm gonna think positive about the possibility that you will.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Any one who has dogged belief in things long after it has been disproven by everyone fits the description, nothing personal.
  I am already the mature discussion person, if you think that I can ever have a serious affitnity for the political Right as they are presently after all they do and have done, I have beachfront property in Colorado to sell you.....
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin 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.
  
  {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114294#post2431476
  {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2434990
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The mirror image of an Islamic state?
  No way.
  You've drawn the wrong conclusion there for sure.
  I'm not even gonna ask how you reached that conclusion. I can only assume that you're accusing Christianity of being the same as Islam because you disrespect Christianity.
  reply report
  61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. They're just really that identical.
  
  Has roots in Abraham's faith? Check.
  Heightened emphasis on a supposedly-divine prophet instead of God? Check.
  Claims to be peaceful while sneaking in commands to wage war and kill oppressors? Check.
  Supposed miracles being performed? Check.
  Laughably inaccurate science? Check.
  Nonsensical rites added for the sake of pageantry? Check.
  Writer of most of the chief holy books (Paul and Mohammed respectively) were lying sacks of crap who were just seeking to control a weak-minded populace? Check.
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ms. Durham, please do not resort to distorting what I said.
  
  I never accused [/i]"Christianity of being the same as Islam"[/i] nor should you be so rude as to say "you disrespect Christianity." I will repeat what I said for your benefit. "Your view of a Christian nation is …the mirror image of an Islamic state and neither can survive in the modern age." {1}
  
  I am sorry, Ms. Durham. Your altering the dialog shows a lack of integrity and sincerity. I will not continue.
  
  {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2435241
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry if you're offended, but surely you realize it's offensive and IS disrespectful to Christianity and to a Christian when you compare Islam to Christianity?! If you didn't mean that Islam is the same as Christianity, then what exactly do you mean by saying the two are mirror images of each other?
  
  Islam is not the same as Christianity. And while the idea of Islam may have been drawn from events in the Bible, leading to the wrong assumption much later by some that Ishmael was chosen to represent God's people just like Isaac was, the truth is that God didn't choose that, and indeed the idea gave birth to a false religion where a man named Muhammad is put on the same level as Christ Himself. That "image" is a made-up false one. If it's any kind of "mirror image", it's a cracked one. From what I've read and heard about the Koran, even, that book is an unholy imitation of the word of God, somewhat similar to how the Devil takes Scripture and twists parts of it for his own selfish reasons.
  
  If you meant that it's just my view of a Christian Nation that is the mirror image of Islam, you're wrong on that too. In my view, I never stated anything about Sharia Law being what I'd put in force, and I never advocated any imprisonment of people who engage in homosexual activity, and I never advocated for women to be made slaves to men, etc.
  And if you didn't mean that Christianity is the mirror image of Islam, then for you to say that my view is the mirror image of Islam is also just as bad of an accusation, because that's like saying my view isn't a valid Christian view!
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ms. Durham,
  
  If you happen to be dyslectic or otherwise impaired then I apologize.
  
  My words: “Your view of a Christian nation is …the mirror image of an Islamic state and neither can survive in the modern age.”
  
  Your distorted interpretation: “Islam is the same as Christianity” and “the two are mirror images of each other.”
  
  I did not compare Christianity to Islam. I did not say Christianity is the same as Islam. I did not say Christianity is a mirror image of Islam. I should not have to explain what I did not say in such detail.
  
  Instead of trying to paraphrase what I said, you should simply read what I said literally. Do you see “your view?” “Your view” is the subject of the sentence, and the following sentence as well, not “Christian nation” and not “Islamic state.” I am talking about “your view.” The following sentence reads, "It [your view] is a mirror image of an Islamic state.” Surely comprehending two simple sentences should not be this difficult.
  
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm. I think I explained my reaction in the previous post, but...........
  Okay, let's start from scratch.
  You said that my view of a Christian Nation is the mirror image of an Islamic state; correct?
  Would you mind explaining what you meant by that, including the points that I made about what a Christian Nation is and should be, and compare those to what you mean by an "Islamic state"...........?
  report
  73
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What I interpreted Quillographer to mean is that America as you envision it, as a religion controlled country, would be a fanatical, narrow-minded and frightening place. With rules and laws set only by the human enforcers of their belief of what the Bible says.
  The parallels of such a country with a strictly Islamic state are spelled out in detail.
  You cannot see the comparison because you see Christianity as a "good" religion and Islam as a "bad" religion.
  The point is religious fanatics should not be running countries.
  Period.
  
  Quill, I know I have way oversimplified here. And not done your argument justice whatsoever.
  But my intentions were good!
  MM
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  You asked, Ms. Durham, for examples of how some your views compare to an Islamic State.
  
  "It is NOT okay to cover hatred for Christians and other conservatives under the guise of freedom of speech." {1}
  
  Under our Constitution, Ms. Durham, it is okay. In this country, expressing hated for others is protected if it is not slanderous and does not incite violence. It is your view that this should not be permitted if it offends Conservatives or Christians. This intolerance is mirrored by the intolerance for speech that Islamic States find offensive.
  “According to Islamic law, it is a criminal offense to speak ill of Islam, its Prophet, and its Holy Scriptures” {2}
  
  And another example of your views being mirrored by those in an Islamic State is found in your statement, “the truth is that there is no such thing as a "liberal" Christian…because a Christian will go by the Bible as he/she matures, and they will follow the conservative doctrine that that Holy Bible contains.”
  {3}
  
  As a sidebar comment, no informed observer can honestly deny the overwhelming influence Christian Liberals have had on US politics and it is your view “there is no such thing!” John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., President Jimmy Carter are among the legions of political and social leaders that have championed the cause of Christian Liberalism in America. {4}
  
  Getting back, you stated that Christians by your definition “will go by the Bible and will follow the conservative doctrine that that Holy Bible contains.” From your Christian nation viewpoint, Christians would follow the politically conservative doctrines contained in the Holy Bible. It explains why you treat religion and politics as inseparable and you frequently use the phrase “Christians and other conservatives.”
  
  This is not much different than an Islamic State in which Muslims follow the conservative doctrines contained in the Holy Qur’an. A different book preaching the same mindset. “Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives.” {5} “It is a generally accepted fact among Muslims, that there is no concept of "separation of 'Church' and State" in the Islam faith.” {6}
  
  Here is an example where your view is not a mirror image but, by your own words, a direct comparison.
  
  “It would be an America where people had guts like the Egyptians do, and weren't ashamed to correct their wrongs,” you wrote. You also expanded your view in this way. “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!" {7}
  
  Your words call for the use of a military coup as a "recall system" needed in this country. Your statement praises the successful use of military force applied recently to suspend democracy in a former Islamic State now in transition.
  
  Finally, you have this odd view of America sexuality. “It would be an America where women are feminine and men are masculine.” You do not say how or why but clearly, “your” America will have eliminated masculine women and feminine men. Did they die? Were they deported? Imprisoned? What will have happened to nearly 4% of the US population in Ms. Durham’s America?
  
  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}
  
  I hope you have a pleasant day, Ms. Durham. I always learn a lot from your posts.
  
  {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2434615
  {2} http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Freedom_of_Speech
  {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2434990
  {4} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left
  {5} http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Law#S … _and_State
  {6}
  http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Law#Qur.27an
  {7} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114294#post2431476
  {8} http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Law#Homosexuality
  report
  67
  A Thousand Wordsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The brilliance and organization of your posts never cease to amaze.
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Your comment is greatly appreciate. Thank you.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I was thinking that too, about Quilligrapher's posts!
  He's been putting in the specific references to all the conversation points. Cool. I dunno how to even do that.............
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Ms. Durham.
  
  Below every forum post there is a “permalink” button. If you click on it, the permanent link address to that post will appear in your browser's URL address bar. Cut that permanent link address and paste it anywhere you need a link directly back at that post.
  
  Just no charge advice probably worth less than what you paid for it.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, hey, we are still in a recession, right? haha.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Okay. Fair enough. You've made your points. I will try to speak to some of those.........will you maybe give me a while?............
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Fair enough. There is no need to hurry.
  
  I am looking forward to your comments about the specific mirrored points, i.e. restricing speech you deem offensive, insisting Christians must follow the political and religious doctrines found in ancient manuscripts, advocating military force over civilian rule, and denying minorities a place and a role. Of course, strawmen, red herrings and other fallacies will only be a waste of our time. .
  
  I am sure, Ms. Durham, there is much I can learn from you. I hope you have a wonderful evening.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'll start with the first one then. I'm gonna need to do this one at a time probably.
  "Restricting speech you (I) deem offensive"........
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2436381
  
  I am convinced that the activities and words of, for example, the Westboro Baptist "Church" (I put that in quotes because I don't think of them as a legitimate "Church", and more specifically I don't think they're true Baptists at all)........for example, that group of people, in my opinion and via common decency and manners and a sense of respectful treatment of other human beings, should never be allowed to picket the funerals of soldiers and to carry signs that say God hates fags; that's an outright lie anyway.
  By the same token (actually, first of all, since the gay agenda threw the first punches and the Westboro group simply retaliated).........gay pride parades should never be allowed either; they contain indecent exposure, signs speaking lies (including misquoting the Bible just as badly as does the Westboro Church), riotous behavior, etc.
  Both events are horrid and nasty and indecent and carriers of lies and disrespect and total lack of respect for humanity and for God's sovreignty.
  
  Yet.....both events are allowed to be carried out.
  Why should things like that be allowed to be done in public?
  Why are they allowed?
  In what interpretation of "free speech" is such hatred and disgusting accusations covered?
  Why do even liberals say the Westboro Church has the "right" to do what it does?
  You tell me, if you're willing to admit it.
  
  So.....in my ideal America, neither of those events would be legal; both would be banned because they're methods of harrassment, indecency, and vehicles for an anti-Christian agenda; both are acts of bullying and insult and bad examples for impressionable children and adults.
  
  If you want to compare that to Islam, then go ahead. But I'm pretty sure Islam's rules would extend way beyond any form of prosecution that I'd allow. For instance, I'd never advocate the death penalty for either group's behavior! Doesn't Islam? You tell me; and then maybe we can make a proper comparison.
  
  (Hey, did I do the permalink thingy right?)
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hello Ms. Durham. The short answer is they do no real harm.
  
  I truly appreciate your taking the time to address me and to explain your beliefs. I value the insight you provided.
  
  Your disdain for the Westboro Baptist Church is probably on a par with my own. They are a despicable group concerned more with provoking litigation then spreading the gospels.
  
  No matter how often or how badly they offend my sensibilities, they do no real damage and that is the focal point of free speech. Remember the school yard rhyme “Sticks and Stones?” It ends with “but names will never hurt me,” “names” and “words” as well. I tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church because their words are harmless. I could let them offend me. I could let them make me angry. However, I would be responsible if I gave in to these emotions. Their words, on the other hand, can never hurt me. Likewise, our Constitution protects their right to shout words, no matter how grotesque they seem to us, from any corner, curb, or web site because the words to not cause any real harm. So what, who cares, don’t listen!
  
  Ms. Durham wrote:
  ”By the same token (actually, first of all, since the gay agenda threw the first punches and the Westboro group simply retaliated).........gay pride parades should never be allowed either; they contain indecent exposure, signs speaking lies (including misquoting the Bible just as badly as does the Westboro Church), riotous behavior, etc.
  Both events are horrid and nasty and indecent and carriers of lies and disrespect and total lack of respect for humanity and for God's sovreignty.
  
  Yet.....both events are allowed to be carried out.
  Why should things like that be allowed to be done in public?
  Why are they allowed?
  In what interpretation of "free speech" is such hatred and disgusting accusations covered?”
  
  Gay Pride parades are very similar but garnished with an added twist. If their placards, attire, and demeanor offend me personally, so what, see above. I would not take children to such a parade if I thought they were not old enough for what they might see or hear. Nevertheless, I would think twice before I rained on their parade.
  
  The marchers have a right to express their pride. The revelers that line the street to just watch also have a right to assemble there. Do I have the right to deprive them of their rights when their actions and their signs cause me no real harm?
  
  Ms. Durham wrote:
  ”So.....in my ideal America, neither of those events would be legal; both would be banned because they're methods of harrassment, indecency, and vehicles for an anti-Christian agenda; both are acts of bullying and insult and bad examples for impressionable children and adults.
  
  If you want to compare that to Islam, then go ahead. But I'm pretty sure Islam's rules would extend way beyond any form of prosecution that I'd allow. For instance, I'd never advocate the death penalty for either group's behavior! Doesn't Islam? You tell me; and then maybe we can make a proper comparison.”
  
  Intolerance when there is no harm is injustice. In “your America”, Ms. Durham, banning such events would be unnecessarily infringing on the liberty of minorities and that is called tyranny. Since we have all read about your dislike for tyranny, it hard rationalize your dislike for some forms of tyranny and your praise for your own.
  
  I am content to leave such attitudes in Islamic Nations where the populace is more accustomed to being stifled.
  
  Thank you for sharing. I owe you.
  
  BTW, your permalink thingy works perfectly.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm gonna have to disagree.
  Both of those cause huge harm.
  The actions of the Westboro Church, and the gay pride parades, are examples of social and moral harm to society. Both are harrassment, both are attacks on the reputations of individuals and society in general. Yep. Whether our legal system says so or not, the truth is what I just said. When man's laws conflict with God's, there's a huge problem. America was on the right track for a long time; it righted its wrongs, and then it held to what was right. Until the liberal agenda activists succeeded in manipulating our laws and changing them into unGodly ones.
  
  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.
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ms. Durham, please forgive me.
  
  I came online today intending to delete this post but I am too late. I do, however, wish to withdraw it for now. It was terribly unfair of me to respond so quickly to your “free speech” comments while you are still working on responding to the other three of points I raised earlier.
  
  I shall, therefore, wait until you have posted comments about all four of my points before I distract you with my own comments.
  
  Again, I am sorry. I look forward to reading your three other follow-ups.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Point number 2
  "...insisting Christians must follow the political and religious doctrines found in ancient manuscripts......"
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2436381
  
  I....don't understand why you'd have a problem with that! If you're referring to the Holy Bible, then....well.....that's what Christians DO; they're Bible-believers. Are you under the impression that there's some other writings or doctrine that a "Christian" follows? Not possible. The Bible is THE written word of God.
  If you're meaning that the Bible is too old to still be followed today, then I say the same answer-----it is THE one and only written word of God; and even though there are some particulars that are inapplicable today, the Bible is still timeless and relevant in its concepts. There is a reference in it that says IF all the things that Jesus did were to be written down, (the author) supposes that the world couldn't hold all the books...........but it doesn't say those things WERE written down anywhere. Lots of false religions were begun simply because people decided to try to "be" modern-day writers of the Bible; that's how the Book of Mormon got written, that's how the Seventh-Day Adventists started worshipping Ellen G. White and putting her books on the same par as the Holy Bible (actually above the Bible); that's how the Catholic Church's catechisms came to be seen as Gospel when in fact they're just the opinions and imaginations of some priests!; that's how some people now want to separate Jesus's words from the rest of the Bible instead of realizing that Jesus IS God and that the entire Bible IS sanctioned by Jesus, "written" by Him!
  
  If you're questioning about the "old" Laws in the Old Testament, some of those were specifically for those times, considering the system of justice that was in place and the reasons for it, and the ability of mankind to mete out punishment and etc. during those times. We still have to follow to the best of our abilities the Law, yes, but many of the consequences were changed to spiritual consequences instead of the letter of the Law being kept in force, because no one can literally keep the letter of the Law.
  
  If you're asking why Christians insist on following the Bible's concepts instead of modern man's laws, then it's simply because sometimes there's a huge conflict between the two, and Christians have the duty and desire to follow God instead of fallible man.
  
  In some ways I don't follow the "political" doctrine of the Bible, because here in America we don't have Kings like there were in Bible days. I had this conversation with people earlier in a thread, and they of course quoted the Bible where it says rulers are for the good of the people, etc..............well, American doesn't have rulers; we have a system of government that's a Democratic Republic, or a Republican foundation with democracy in place within that framework, and indeed our President and the rest of our government does NOT always act for our good. So there's no reason to even treat them like they're Kings and etc., because they're not. Americans have rights. First of all, those rights were indeed based on Biblical concepts. Secondly, Christians can indeed be politically active and still remain Christians and still adhere to the concepts of the Bible; we do not (or at least should not) have to beg our government for something as though the Officials are our rulers; WE are supposed to be the "rulers" as a whole (but with the foundational basis still in place). Liberals in our society, including in our government, have been hell-bent on trying, however, to deny and to change that foundation. Christians have a duty to fight that, whether it's by prayer or by prayer and petition, picketing, voting, calling our Officials to responsibility, and if they refuse to listen, then by firing them, impeaching them, even having them forcibly removed if necessary! .....Which....may bring us to the third point...........?
  report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hello, Ms. Durham. I am happy to see you continue our dialog but disappointed that you seem to have moved off topic.
  
  Remember that we were specifically discussing my examples showing how your particular views for America were so similar to the views held in Islamic States. It was your stated intention to examine those similarities and to respond but you have not done so.
  
  In my second example, I said, “And another example of your views being mirrored by those in an Islamic State is found in your statement, “the truth is that there is no such thing as a "liberal" Christian…because a Christian will go by the Bible as he/she matures, and they will follow the conservative doctrine that that Holy Bible contains.”
  
  I went on from there to demonstrate the similarity to an Islamic State. “You stated that Christians by your definition 'will go by the Bible and will follow the conservative doctrine that that Holy Bible contains.' From your Christian nation viewpoint, Christians would follow the politically conservative doctrines contained in the Holy Bible.
  
  “This is not much different than an Islamic State in which Muslims follow the conservative doctrines contained in the Holy Qur’an. A different book preaching the same mindset. ’Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives.’ ‘It is a generally accepted fact among Muslims, that there is no concept of "separation of 'Church' and State" in the Islam faith.’"
  
  Sadly, you side step the obvious similarity by launching a lengthy defense of your own religious beliefs. ”Point number 2 ‘...insisting Christians must follow the political and religious doctrines found in ancient manuscripts..."
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114296? … ost2436381
  I.... don’t understand why you'd have a problem with that!”
  
  Actually, I do not have a problem except your lengthy and detailed defense of your reliance on the Holy Bible does not address how similar your viewpoint is to the thinking found in an Islamic State. To the contrary, you re-emphasize your reliance on an ancient manuscript which is a view of America political life that clearly mirrors the reliance on the Holy Qur’an in an Islamic State. Surely, you must see the similarity.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure, really.
  Don't Islamic Nations advocate for killing homosexuals and people who speak against the Koran or against Islam? You tell me. .......I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that my view of an ideal "Christian" America would be much much more tolerant than Islam is!
  And it's my impression that Islamic Nations don't send the authorities out to try to arrest and prosecute those groups who behead people on video! Do you know if they do try to find those murderers and bring them to "justice"?
  I know that I would try to bring them to justice.
  So how is that a "mirror image" of Islam?
  Doesn't "mirror image" mean an exact replica of something?
  There are way too many differences between Islam and Christianity to begin with, much less trying to compare my personal view of how American politics should be....to the Muslim religion......
  report
  61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good thing the founding fathers wrote the 1st Amendment, then (free speech + government can't support any religion), to prevent that kind of despicable tyranny.
  report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, actually, about Jesus and the early Church looking "socialist", if one wants to term it that way. That was the ideal way of living for them, because their intent was to be all of one accord; their goals were the same; their mission was the same, etc., or was supposed to be the same anyway. The book of Acts, Chapter 2, in the Bible records this; and then we can read in Chapters 4 and 5 how this plan proceeded and how a couple of people with their own personal goals broke that chain of fellowship.
  The thing is that there were specific rules, and God Himself was the head of that "socialist" body of people, and God punished the rule-breakers.
  
  If we were to want to compare that to today's "socialism", especially in America, it would be a hard sell. For the main reason that there are too many rule-breakers who wouldn't allow the right agenda to proceed; too many people who wouldn't honor God as the head; so the whole thing falls apart.
  
  The disciples' setup was Godly. That "socialist" group was specifically for those people who believed in Christ. Modern definitions of "socialism" indicate the allowance of someone besides God to be the head of it; that's what's wrong with it.
  
  Now, there are some specific "socialist" programs in America that are good. I am all for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. along with the checks and balances that go along with it---weeding out fraud, giving benefits only to people who are legitimate citizens, etc.
  reply report
  80
  Wayne Brownposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So the governor of Hawaii is an expert in birth certificate confirmation...looks more like a matter of authority than expertise.
  reply report
4. 60
  Moshkaposted 11 years agoin 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".
  reply report
61
Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago
And every president born before 1776 was born before the U.S. was even a thing, so their home country is Britain.
reply report
1. 80
  Wayne Brownposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
80
Wayne Brownposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 61
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I seriously doubt you would recognize a clearly obvious fact even if it bit you in the arse.
  reply report
  80
  Wayne Brownposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A birther talking about facts, oh the hilarity.
  reply report
73
Mighty Momposted 11 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.
reply report
73
Mighty Momposted 11 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
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  MM, I had to comment, the link you provide here was great and so appropo!!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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!
  
  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.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
73
Mighty Momposted 11 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
reply report
73
Mighty Momposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  73
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
61
Zelkiiroposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'll watch it when I get the time. Thank you for posting.
  reply report
61
eorindaposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you believe he's a Kenyan?
  And why are you proud of him even though he snubbed you?
  reply report
78
Uninvited Writerposted 11 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.
reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 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.
reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 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).........
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
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.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
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.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
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.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

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

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

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

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies