Did McCain Make A Big Mistake ?

[CarolinaProWash]

I further stated that I don't like McCain either. Damned if I'm going to be lumped in with folks who talk sh*t about folks they don't like. That is better left to the back stabbers. I simply stated that Obama displays a lack of patriotism - as evidenced in photos.

I'm off for Labor Day. Political discussion is ya'll's - have at it.

[Beth n Rod]

We fly the flag here on National Holidays. But I don't wear flag jewelry. I am a very proud American with roots to our founders. I'm moved by our anthems and fireworks displays. I remember our fallen soldiers and have visited monuments with friends who have lost loved ones. And at my daughter's middle school graduation I forgot to put my hand over my heart until about half way through the anthem...why...I was preoccupied and caught up in the occasion since my son had also graduated High School that day. Oh well. I really don't think I'm unpatriotic because of that. It is what it is.

Beth

[Mike Williamson]

Originally Posted by Beth n Rod

We fly the flag here on National Holidays. But I don't wear flag jewelry. I am a very proud American with roots to our founders. I'm moved by our anthems and fireworks displays. I remember our fallen soldiers and have visited monuments with friends who have lost loved ones. And at my daughter's middle school graduation I forgot to put my hand over my heart until about half way through the anthem...why...I was preoccupied and caught up in the occasion since my son had also graduated High School that day. Oh well. I really don't think I'm unpatriotic because of that. It is what it is.

Beth

Agreed. I don't wear flag jewelery either. But if I were running for President, and someone gave me a flag pin to wear, I probably wouldn't refuse. Why? Because while Patriotism IS in your heart, when you're trying to convince others that you're the right candidate for President, you need to make every effort to display what's in your heart...refusing to wear the pin doesn't necessarily mean you aren't Patriotic in your heart, it COULD mean that...

[Apple Roof Cleaning]

Originally Posted by Mike Williamson

There is no separation of church and state. Where does the constitution say THAT??

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

Mike, providing TAX MONEY in support of Religon
IOW, I dont want my public school tax money spent for providing a place for people to pray.
NOTHING against Prayer either.
Just do it in church with others who WANT to do it.

[Don L]

Derived ...that is weak.

[Don L]

Oh,
BTW...religion has very little to do with the Truth.
As you were...

[Mike Williamson]

Originally Posted by Apple Roof Cleaning

In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

Mike, providing TAX MONEY in support of Religon
IOW, I dont want my public school tax money spent for providing a place for people to pray.
NOTHING against Prayer either.
Just do it in church with others who WANT to do it.

I don't care what's "derived" from the first amendment. I wasn't really looking for a cut and paste, I was hoping for more intellectual thought. The first amendment says nothing about prohibiting direct connections. It is intended to prevent a government-forced religion, and to prevent the church from using the government to force religion on the people. Allowing someone to pray, or even providing a time and/or place for them to pray is not forcing religion on anyone, nor is it creating a government-forced religion.

If I want to pray, I'll do it where I want to. If that offends you, sorry. Some things about you offend me, but I don't expect the government to force you to go away.

Originally Posted by Don L

Oh,
BTW...religion has very little to do with the Truth.
As you were...

Very true.

[Don L]

Hey Mike,
Very well done.
With all due respect,liberalism is a mental disorder.To quote Savage.
I can't claim it for my own.
Mike ,what is your response to Palin?

Jewelry is irrelevant,Marxism,on the other hand ,is not.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Mike Williamson

And I agree that there are a lot of falsehoods out there about Obama...as there are about McCain, GW, etc etc. Wouldn't it be nice if campaigns ran on the issues and the truth, and no on smear and inuendo? They all do it. Look at the comments Obama made about McCain not remembering (or not knowing) how many houses he has. Who cares? He's a rich man, and has a lot of assets. Big deal.

Thats funny......run on issues ha ha ha, they all rather tear you down to win. Very sad. we hear 15% issues and the rest is just twisting BS from all sides.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by CPW

I further stated that I don't like McCain either. Damned if I'm going to be lumped in with folks who talk sh*t about folks they don't like. That is better left to the back stabbers. I simply stated that Obama displays a lack of patriotism - as evidenced in photos.

I'm off for Labor Day. Political discussion is ya'll's - have at it.

I was just commenting on the statement that you posted about NOT showing an OUNCE of patriotism, now you are saying displays a LACK of.............sounds like flip flopping to me, who are you really John Kerrey?

Just busting on you

Have a nice weekend

[HotShot]

Well, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic moderators eh hemm...

I think McCain made a good choice. He will not be able to use the "no experience" thing about Nobama, but people didn't seem to care anyway. Gov Palin stands for conservatism and that is what most conservatives were missing about McCain. McCain is a little too liberal for my taste, but maybe she will nag him into shape like most women do Just kiddin

Plus, she is very good looking for a 44 year old. She has a son in the Army so she puts her money where her mouth is also. She's for drilling in ANWR and realizes that it will not hurt the spotted turtle. She is staunchly pro-LIFE which any good Bible thumper like myself can appreciate. Today is her 20th anniversary with the same husband which is rare nowadays and I am pretty sure that the husband is a MALE.

The more I read and hear about this lady, the more I like.

[Mike Williamson]

Originally Posted by Don L

Hey Mike,
Very well done.
With all due respect,liberalism is a mental disorder.To quote Savage.
I can't claim it for my own.
Mike ,what is your response to Palin?

Jewelry is irrelevant,Marxism,on the other hand ,is not.

I don't know anything about her, other than that she's governor of Alaska, and was Mayor of another small town before that, has 5 kids, one of whom is disabled, is pro-life, and is AOG (well, that I don't know, but so I've heard.)

I don't think McCain is stupid, and I'm sure his choice is well thought out, and I'm sure there are many reasons for it that we're simply unaware of. I like the idea of a younger woman on the ticket, if it is the right woman. I don't know enough about her to say if she is that woman or not!

[Mike Williamson]

Originally Posted by HotShot

Well, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic moderators eh hemm...

I think McCain made a good choice. He will not be able to use the "no experience" thing about Nobama, but people didn't seem to care anyway. Gov Palin stands for conservatism and that is what most conservatives were missing about McCain. McCain is a little too liberal for my taste, but maybe she will nag him into shape like most women do Just kiddin

Plus, she is very good looking for a 44 year old. She has a son in the Army so she puts her money where her mouth is also. She's for drilling in ANWR and realizes that it will not hurt the spotted turtle. She is staunchly pro-LIFE which any good Bible thumper like myself can appreciate. Today is her 20th anniversary with the same husband which is rare nowadays and I am pretty sure that the husband is a MALE.

The more I read and hear about this lady, the more I like.

Sure he can still use the no-experience thing with Obama. She's not running for President...Though I agree, the VP is a heartbeat away...but then again, the Speaker is two heartbeats away. I'd much rather have an experienced President with an inexperienced VP than an inexperienced President with an experienced VP.

[MMI Enterprises]

Originally Posted by Apple Roof Cleaning

In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

Mike, providing TAX MONEY in support of Religon
IOW, I dont want my public school tax money spent for providing a place for people to pray.
NOTHING against Prayer either.
Just do it in church with others who WANT to do it.

I'll second that but with an emphasis that in the founders hearts and minds I bet they were striving as much for the state staying out of or being limited in power over the church as the church staying out of state affairs...To think the founders didn't want the state to be steeped or awashed in good old fashioned beliefs as some do would be hogwash. I don't doubt that huge amounts of personal effort, guided and blessed by the very hand of God hisself, was speant on limiting the ability to make different interpritations of what they wrote. Nothing of man is perfect though eh?... How much has been twisted and torn from original intent by ammendments in direct conflict with the original words?
I recognize the lingo built into the founding documents tend toward recognizing and affirming religious beliefs as much or more so than simple moral belief so I got to hand it to the church as being forefront on their goal of offering protections by their words.
Did the founders recognize the majority of people were followers of a belief system and a creator and would not want their freedoms in such taken away?
Seems they wrote it with just the right amount of balance that both are held in check from the other.

[MMI Enterprises]

But Mike..why a woman rather than a man? Are we to believe she is most qualified or suited to the tasks of what a VP does over other possable running mates? Does anyone know if they have had past political ties and ventures? Until I hear such it seems like a team made up for no better reason than an attempt to come off seeming progressive in getting a woman up there in roles of government. I'll try to listen to what is being offered with open mind...I don't think I am going to hear that he picked her cause she is a woman that give him more chance at being elected. Instead we'll hear a speal of how good or complimentory she is to his leadership. Blahbide blah. I would rather hear him say it for whagt it is. I may evenvote soley on that single statement alone over the Obama stuff. Obama speach was good and all but really I got to ask. Does he really expect the tax payers to step in and accept funding all them worthy ideas for the under acheivers? If he said he'll lean towards scrapping aggression and policing to pay for it I would listen to him. But then I have to also hear things of some major government funding of alternative energy and other important things.