[Pick6]

Senate confirmation hearings.

Any body surprised? Any body think this will stick?


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ABC-New...id/744759/

[catdoggy]

LOL! You'll fall for anything.

[Granny Bear]

^
You don't think Hillary lied?

[TheRealThing]

^^Hillary is not quite as smooth as Obama when he lies though, I can still tell when he's lying about something important. Last whopper was about the ransom paid to Iran. I thought she did a terrible job on the Jimmy Fallon show last night in trying to laugh off the latest batch of 15 thousand new emails, over 1,000 of which have already been deemed classified.

It will stick for anyone who cares about the truth. The pundits will continue to tell us Hillary has this election in the bag right up until election night. The true outcome will rest on the integrity of the voters. If the takers now have the majority the conservatives will lose. If those with a conscience and sense of right and wrong have the majority, the liberals will lose.

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^Hillary is not quite as smooth as Obama when he lies though, I can still tell when he's lying about something important. Last whopper was about the ransom paid to Iran. I thought she did a terrible job on the Jimmy Fallon show last night in trying to laugh off the latest batch of 15 thousand new emails, over 1,000 of which have already been deemed classified.

It will stick for anyone who cares about the truth. The pundits will continue to tell us Hillary has this election in the bag right up until election night. The true outcome will rest on the integrity of the voters. If the takers now have the majority the conservatives will lose. If those with a conscience and sense of right and wrong have the majority, the liberals will lose.

Here, you argue that a person of conscience, a person with a sense of right and wrong cannot vote for HRC. Can it not be similarly argued when one views the totality of the dealings of DJT?

You are essentially saying that a mother of three in Virginia, who works and sees to her kids, has no conscience and no sense of right or wrong if she votes for HRC.

I would say she doesn't have YOUR conscience, or YOUR sense of right and wrong.

[catdoggy]

You guys support a candidate who lies every 5 minutes. And you try and lecture people about HRC. How sanctimonious can you be?

[Pick6]

Well, if you get "the facts" from the DNC, I can see how you would think that way.

[64SUR]

Hillary has never told me a lie to my face. :foreveralone:

[Bob Seger]

LOL! You'll fall for anything.

And if you deny it, it means that you have not only fallen, but are now in essence unable to get up..lol

[Bob Seger]

You guys support a candidate who lies every 5 minutes. And you try and lecture people about HRC. How sanctimonious can you be?

And you continue to support a candidate who you have personally seen and heard with your own eyes and ears to lie under oath in a Congressional hearing as well as countless other examples...The recent Chris Wallace interview quicky comes to mind....Proven to lie to the family's of the Benghazi victims...How about Colin Powell's debunked lie stopper just this week? What does she have to say next? I didn't have sex with that woman?

Sanctimonious? Then what does that make you?

A fool?

[Bob Seger]

Here, you argue that a person of conscience, a person with a sense of right and wrong cannot vote for HRC. Can it not be similarly argued when one views the totality of the dealings of DJT?

You are essentially saying that a mother of three in Virginia, who works and sees to her kids, has no conscience and no sense of right or wrong if she votes for HRC.

I would say she doesn't have YOUR conscience, or YOUR sense of right and wrong.

Just curious, what would you know about having a conscience to begin with, Travolta? Do tell?

[Bob Seger]

^
You don't think Hillary lied?

Sure he does...He just doesn't care...

[TheRealThing]

Here, you argue that a person of conscience, a person with a sense of right and wrong cannot vote for HRC. Can it not be similarly argued when one views the totality of the dealings of DJT?

You are essentially saying that a mother of three in Virginia, who works and sees to her kids, has no conscience and no sense of right or wrong if she votes for HRC.

I would say she doesn't have YOUR conscience, or YOUR sense of right and wrong.

Nope, what I am saying is that the mother of three in Virginia should get a grip on rudimentary biology and keep them drawers up until and if she finds a mate. Secondly, I am saying that all these irresponsible people living for today in the John Lennon sense, are continually looking to be helped by responsible people who've learned to largely govern their own actions. Thirdly I am saying such people are the stuff of Democrat vote farms who, instead of being chastised for their short sighted life styles, are coddled and validated by their kindly Democrat zoo keepers, who promise them if they vote Democrat, those Dems will continue to play Robin Hood. Taking from those who work, and giving it to those who don't, won't, or like the mother of three you mention, cannot control their own behavior.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Nope, what I am saying is that the mother of three in Virginia should get a grip on rudimentary biology and keep them drawers up until and if she finds a mate. Secondly, I am saying that all these irresponsible people living for today in the John Lennon sense, are continually looking to be helped by responsible people who've learned to largely govern their own actions. Thirdly I am saying such people are the stuff of Democrat vote farms who, instead of being chastised for their short sighted life styles, are coddled and validated by their kindly Democrat zoo keepers, who promise them if they vote Democrat, those Dems will continue to play Robin Hood. Taking from those who work, and giving it to those who don't, won't, or like the mother of three you mention, cannot control their own behavior.

First, you assumed the mother of three wasn't a widow, wasn't married. Since she was hypothetical, we'll let that pass.

Second, you take personal responsibility, in my view, to a ridiculous extreme. Simply because God holds a person accountable for his or her life does not mean that a fair amount of interdependence is not clear and present in Scripture.

Third, I strongly dissent from the proposition that only those with no conscience and no sense of right or wrong would vote for HRC.

[catdoggy]

First, you assumed the mother of three wasn't a widow, wasn't married. Since she was hypothetical, we'll let that pass.

Second, you take personal responsibility, in my view, to a ridiculous extreme. Simply because God holds a person accountable for his or her life does not mean that a fair amount of interdependence is not clear and present in Scripture.

Third, I strongly dissent from the proposition that only those with no conscience and no sense of right or wrong would vote for HRC.

Its funny they tout personal responsibility while blaming the government and immigrants for everything. People in glass houses..

[TheRealThing]

First, you assumed the mother of three wasn't a widow, wasn't married. Since she was hypothetical, we'll let that pass.

Second, you take personal responsibility, in my view, to a ridiculous extreme. Simply because God holds a person accountable for his or her life does not mean that a fair amount of interdependence is not clear and present in Scripture.

Third, I strongly dissent from the proposition that only those with no conscience and no sense of right or wrong would vote for HRC.

Every man and every woman will be judged for their life. There are no passes, no exceptions and no mitigating circumstances. Bad decisions here, result in ramifications equal to the decision. Personal responsibility is a strange concept to the liberal, and as you aptly demonstrate, is normally rejected out of hand.

That's why you cannot wrap your head around 'equality of opportunity' versus income inequality. One is valid, the other invalid. There is a wide gulf between the proven reality of the recent past and the unproven rationales of today. Succinctly put, it is the framers against the dreamers. The liberal way of thought will eventually completely destroy this nation. And if we don't turn the ship of state away from those looming rocks this time, and we've certainly had ample warnings from the deck watch, it will our last chance.

“Without God there could be no American form of government nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first the most basic expression of Americanism."” ---DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

[TheRealThing]

^^I should have put up more of that DD Eisenhower quote. In fact, the whole speech deserves the light of day. Eisenhower was speaking to the American Legion on the subject of their "Back-to-God Project" Feb. 20. 1955. If you ask me in the following short speech, Dwight David Eisenhower said more substantively, than all the combined windage contributed by Barack Obama over the past 8 years.

SPEECH TEXT---
"THE FOUNDING FATHERS expressed in words for all to read the ideal of Government based upon the dignity of the individual. That ideal previously had existed only in the hearts and minds of men. They produced the timeless documents upon which the Nation is founded and has grown great. They, recognizing God as the author of individual fights, declared that the purpose of Government is to secure those rights.

To you and to me this ideal of Government is a self-evident truth. But in many lands the State claims to be the author of human rights. The tragedy of that claim runs through all history and, indeed, dominates our own times. If the State gives rights, it can--and inevitably will--take away those rights.
[SIZE="3"]
Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God's help, it will continue to be.[/SIZE]

It is significant, I believe, that the American Legion--an organization of war veterans--has seen fit to conduct a "Back to God" movement as part of its Americanism program. Veterans realize, perhaps more clearly than others, the prior place that Almighty God holds in our national life. And they can appreciate, through personal experience, that the really decisive battleground of American freedom is in the hearts and minds of our own people.

Now, if I may make a personal observation--you, my fellow citizens, have bestowed upon my associates and myself, ordinary men, the honor and the duty of serving you in the administration of your Government. More and more we are conscious of the magnitude of that task.

The path we travel is narrow and long, beset with many dangers. Each day we must ask that Almighty God will set and keep His protecting hand over us so that we may pass on to those who come after us the heritage of a free people, secure in their God-given rights and in full control of a Government dedicated to the preservation of those rights. I can ask nothing more of each of you of all Americans--than that you join with the American Legion in its present campaign."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10414


Now I would like to ask of my liberal brethren on here; was Dwight David Eisenhower's speech an example of right wing extremism, or was it in some way unsympathetic or dismissive of all the other religions? Or was he on target?

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^I should have put up more of that DD Eisenhower quote. In fact, the whole speech deserves the light of day. Eisenhower was speaking to the American Legion on the subject of their "Back-to-God Project" Feb. 20. 1955. If you ask me in the following short speech, Dwight David Eisenhower said more substantively, than all the combined windage contributed by Barack Obama over the past 8 years.

SPEECH TEXT---
"THE FOUNDING FATHERS expressed in words for all to read the ideal of Government based upon the dignity of the individual. That ideal previously had existed only in the hearts and minds of men. They produced the timeless documents upon which the Nation is founded and has grown great. They, recognizing God as the author of individual fights, declared that the purpose of Government is to secure those rights.

To you and to me this ideal of Government is a self-evident truth. But in many lands the State claims to be the author of human rights. The tragedy of that claim runs through all history and, indeed, dominates our own times. If the State gives rights, it can--and inevitably will--take away those rights.
[SIZE="3"]
Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God's help, it will continue to be.[/SIZE]

It is significant, I believe, that the American Legion--an organization of war veterans--has seen fit to conduct a "Back to God" movement as part of its Americanism program. Veterans realize, perhaps more clearly than others, the prior place that Almighty God holds in our national life. And they can appreciate, through personal experience, that the really decisive battleground of American freedom is in the hearts and minds of our own people.

Now, if I may make a personal observation--you, my fellow citizens, have bestowed upon my associates and myself, ordinary men, the honor and the duty of serving you in the administration of your Government. More and more we are conscious of the magnitude of that task.

The path we travel is narrow and long, beset with many dangers. Each day we must ask that Almighty God will set and keep His protecting hand over us so that we may pass on to those who come after us the heritage of a free people, secure in their God-given rights and in full control of a Government dedicated to the preservation of those rights. I can ask nothing more of each of you of all Americans--than that you join with the American Legion in its present campaign."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10414


Now I would like to ask of my liberal brethren on here; was Dwight David Eisenhower's speech an example of right wing extremism, or was it in some way unsympathetic or dismissive of all the other religions? Or was he on target?

In my view, individual rights have not been seen as "up to the State" when this Nation legislates, adjudicates, and lives closest to the highest expression of its ideals.

[TheRealThing]

In my view, individual rights have not been seen as "up to the State" when this Nation legislates, adjudicates, and lives closest to the highest expression of its ideals.

Did Eisenhower get it right, or was he wrong?

[Motley]

Did Eisenhower get it right, or was he wrong?

Neither. It's an opinion.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Did Eisenhower get it right, or was he wrong?

The "decisive battleground" of freedom had best not reside in the collective human heart and mind of the masses. Freedom of conscience had best be protected by law. Surely our own nation's history demonstrates that.

If the human heart is deceitful above all things, and human fancy as fickle as a teen lover's, the decisive battle of freedom will be the rule of law, with that "law" recognizing that human dignity and freedom does not originate from the State, but rather from "the Creator."

Thus, in my view, Eisenhower's speech is both accurate and mistaken at points. I do not find it extreme. However, I have seen it spun in ways that were extreme.

[TheRealThing]

Neither. It's an opinion.

Wow. Come up with that all by yourself? Eisenhower had a lot to say about your even being a free man right now. I posted that because that was the prevailing understanding in that day of the writings of the framers. It is a profoundly succinct look into the mind of a truly great man, and no pundit or politician dared to oppose the substance of that speech. The people of the US were fiercely united back then. There was no mealy mouthed ambiguities laid between the lines of that speech, nor any other to my knowledge.

We are a nation which was built on the precepts of God, just as was declared on that day by Eisenhower. The Churches back then were always full on Sunday mornings, as it was the norm for families to worship The Father and give thanks. Laws were enforced and neighborhoods were peaceful, and orderly, and safe.

The youth of this land have been done disastrous injustice in the failings of that generation to pass down our true American heritage to them. The resultant disconnect has left most people under 50 rudderless and clueless. The force which supplanted the sage and profound guidance experienced by those who live their lives in Christ, is a miserable substitute called secular humanism. The vitriol, and the love of lies, and the contempt for the truth and the conservative roots of our immediate past, is attributable to the afore mentioned failure to pass on our heritage.

That's why liberals laugh and mock the truth, it is foreign to them, as they've been taught a new lesson. That of depending and expecting government to provide their needs. We have some Thomas Jefferson fans on here, and they love to take liberties with his words. Let's see how they can twist this one; Said THOMAS JEFFERSON--- "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

The hand ringin and the snot slingin are comin. Then all the argument and confrontation by those who never were, will come to a screeching halt against those who once used to be.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Wow. Come up with that all by yourself? Eisenhower had a lot to say about your even being a free man right now. I posted that because that was the prevailing understanding in that day of the writings of the framers. It is a profoundly succinct look into the mind of a truly great man, and no pundit or politician dared to oppose the substance of that speech. The people of the US were fiercely united back then. There was no mealy mouthed ambiguities laid between the lines of that speech, nor any other to my knowledge.

We are a nation which was built on the precepts of God, just as was declared on that day by Eisenhower. The Churches back then were always full on Sunday mornings, as it was the norm for families to worship The Father and give thanks. Laws were enforced and neighborhoods were peaceful, and orderly, and safe.

The youth of this land have been done disastrous injustice in the failings of that generation to pass down our true American heritage to them. The resultant disconnect has left most people under 50 rudderless and clueless. The force which supplanted the sage and profound guidance experienced by those who live their lives in Christ, is a miserable substitute called secular humanism. The vitriol, and the love of lies, and the contempt for the truth and the conservative roots of our immediate past, is attributable to the afore mentioned failure to pass on our heritage.

That's why liberals laugh and mock the truth, it is foreign to them, as they've been taught a new lesson. That of depending and expecting government to provide their needs. We have some Thomas Jefferson fans on here, and they love to take liberties with his words. Let's see how they can twist this one; Said THOMAS JEFFERSON--- "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

The hand ringin and the snot slingin are comin. Then all the argument and confrontation by those who never were, will come to a screeching halt against those who once used to be.

Neither this quote, nor any of its variants have been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The closest I remember is something on the order of as liberty decreases the power of government increases. The supposed quote you offer first appeared in print in 1952 if I remember right. With that said, you and I probably more agree than disagree on "something for nothing" welfare concept.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ Just a question: if the presence of order maintains an absence of justice, what do full churches signify?

[TheRealThing]

Neither this quote, nor any of its variants have been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The closest I remember is something on the order of as liberty decreases the power of government increases. The supposed quote you offer first appeared in print in 1952 if I remember right. With that said, you and I probably more agree than disagree on "something for nothing" welfare concept.

You looked that up so let's not act as if you remember something that happened way before you were born. I've heard the argument and it is at best an argument.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You looked that up so let's not act as if you remember something that happened way before you were born. I've heard the argument and it is at best an argument.

Actually, that particular factoid came up in a class, if I remember, in a 1987 political science class.

And, actually, I researched it. The quote does not exist. I don't doubt that Jefferson believed in limits on governmental power, but he never uttered nor penned those particular words.

[TheRealThing]

Actually, that particular factoid came up in a class, if I remember, in a 1987 political science class.

And, actually, I researched it. The quote does not exist. I don't doubt that Jefferson believed in limits on governmental power, but he never uttered nor penned those particular words.

I believe your research brought you to the conclusion that the quote does not exist. That still doesn't quite settle it for me because it was used back before 99% of the American public had the first clue what Big Government even meant. I know this however, more than one prof lied to me about more than one thing. Whether they meant to do it or whether they didn't think any damage was done by their distortions, is anybody's guess. Everything you hear in the college classroom is not exactly worthy of being chiseled into a chunk of granite.

Supposedly Gerald Ford used the quote in a speech he made and supposedly, it was attributable to Jefferson. I can't prove otherwise but the point of my post is as you ceded, none the less valid. And FTR, many of Benjamin Franklin's quotes are not to be found in any of his formal writings either. As I understand it, the quote is attributable to Jefferson though the liberals do not like it. They researched the body of work known to be penned by Jefferson and didn't find the words. I hardly accept the notion that back when the quill was still in use, that somehow everything that Jefferson wrote and said has been preserved.

Eisenhower's eloquence is timelessly applicable to the understanding of the Framers. The reason is obvious. The living document libs want to take up what they contend to be the intended meaning of the Framers, without benefit of these occasional 'windows' into the minds of the great American patriots at the various junctures across time. It is much more convenient to leap frog from the founding documents to present day, applying light and transient social fads and causes, in order to 'flavor' the interpretation to make the events of history seem the way they would like for them to have been. The speeches and writings of our great leaders gone on, are like oases in the desert of history. They refresh and refuel our attempt to understand our past and our beginning, and are the indispensable transitional links of our true heritage.

Not only do libs reject the journey, they are actively revising it through the written word. They are the revisionists, and their intent is to rewrite history in the liberal view. I call them liars. But, in saying that I am not attempting to tie you to these rats, that is unless you lay claim to it voluntarily.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I believe your research brought you to the conclusion that the quote does not exist. That still doesn't quite settle it for me because it was used back before 99% of the American public had the first clue what Big Government even meant. I know this however, more than one prof lied to me about more than one thing. Whether they meant to do it or whether they didn't think any damage was done by their distortions, is anybody's guess. Everything you hear in the college classroom is not exactly worthy of being chiseled into a chunk of granite.

Supposedly Gerald Ford used the quote in a speech he made and supposedly, it was attributable to Jefferson. I can't prove otherwise but the point of my post is as you ceded, none the less valid. And FTR, many of Benjamin Franklin's quotes are not to be found in any of his formal writings either. As I understand it, the quote is attributable to Jefferson though the liberals do not like it. They researched the body of work known to be penned by Jefferson and didn't find the words. I hardly accept the notion that back when the quill was still in use, that somehow everything that Jefferson wrote and said has been preserved.

Eisenhower's eloquence is timelessly applicable to the understanding of the Framers. The reason is obvious. The living document libs want to take up what they contend to be the intended meaning of the Framers, without benefit of these occasional 'windows' into the minds of the great American patriots at the various junctures across time. It is much more convenient to leap frog from the founding documents to present day, applying light and transient social fads and causes, in order to 'flavor' the interpretation to make the events of history seem the way they would like for them to have been. The speeches and writings of our great leaders gone on, are like oases in the desert of history. They refresh and refuel our attempt to understand our past and our beginning, and are the indispensable transitional links of our true heritage.

Not only do libs reject the journey, they are actively revising it through the written word. They are the revisionists, and their intent is to rewrite history in the liberal view. I call them liars. But, in saying that I am not attempting to tie you to these rats, that is unless you lay claim to it voluntarily.

I believe, TRT, you are a sincere person, a person of faith, and that you grieve for what you see in America, and the world. In that, we agree. I also see much to feel good about in our country, and I think you do also.

I think we differ on what freedom of conscience means, on what the implications are for protecting essential liberty. We've hashed that out in several threads.

[TheRealThing]

I believe, TRT, you are a sincere person, a person of faith, and that you grieve for what you see in America, and the world. In that, we agree. I also see much to feel good about in our country, and I think you do also.

I think we differ on what freedom of conscience means, on what the implications are for protecting essential liberty. We've hashed that out in several threads.

Thanks very much and you have me just right. Though we'll never agree or find common ground about the liberalization of what it truly means to be an American, if you could lay off pushing for the 'transformation' we'd agree on much more I'm sure.