E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Evan Vucci / AP
Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich shakes hands during a campaign stop Tuesday at the Tulare World Ag Expo in Tulare, Calif.
TULARE, CA – Newt Gingrich criticized Republican rival Rick Santorum on Tuesday afternoon for his “complete misunderstanding of modern warfare” over the former Pennsylvania senator’s remarks on women in combat.
Santorum on Thursday said he had “concerns about women in frontline combat.”
“I think that could be a very compromising situation … where people naturally, you know, may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved,” Santorum told CNN’s John King.
Gingrich fired back at Santorum, calling his credentials to be commander in chief into question during a press availability at the Tulare World Ag expo during his four-day swing in California.
“We should be very proud of the men and women who put on the American uniform and risk their lives in order to protect this country,” Gingrich told reporters. “I just think that Rick completely misunderstands the nature of modern warfare by his comments.”
The former House speaker, who during many campaign speeches refers to himself as a former “Army brat,” said he believes no matter where you are wearing the U.S. military uniform, you are in combat – something Santorum should understand.
“Whatever your technical assignment, whether you’re a truck driver or you’re working with logistics, or you’re a military person, you’re in combat. And I think that we have to understand that from day one,” Gingrich said.
Leave a Comment:
Yes, Santorum has a problem , it is his view of women. Maybe he still believes the 19th century view that if women study the classics it would shrink their uterus. Women should only learn to read the bible and study the domestic arts.
Rickey, it is 2012 get up to speed.
Northstar, He's not alone. I think you need to stay in the kitchen, cook dinner all day, take care of 5 children... and as they grow up you need to have more to keep you busy... large families are such a comfort in your old age and there's no time like the present to start. No abortions for you... and you can definitely NOT serve in the military. Battlefronts are no place for women because they can't possibly stand the pressure of incoming fire... and then of course the other men will overreact if a woman gets shot...
I never realized women actually want to see action on the battle front. The day of protecting women is over. On that note, you gals can open your own doors, pull out your own chairs, and protect yourselves when attacked by rapists and muggers... deal?
Fine by me. I'd rather take care of myself than rely on some lazy man to do it for me.
Brianb,
i hope you are being facetious?
It is about women having choices and not being judged because of some preconceived notion of what any particular woman can or cannot do or become.
Manners is a whole different cateogry. I would certainly hold open the door for you Brian.
Of course no one wants to be attacked by any rapist or mugger. I would hope anyone would come to the aid of any person in that circumstance by at least calling the police.
Happy Valentine Day.
I hope you sent your wife something really nice and she sent you something too.
.
The entire GOP misunderstands modern warfare
It was Bush & the neocons who failed to kill or capture Bin Laden: it was Bush & the neocons who failed to destroy Al Qaida and the Taliban after 8 years of war and trillions of dollars spent; It was Bush & the GOP who lied to the entire world about WMD in Iraq; It was Bush who failed on the war on terror; It was Bush & the GOP who turned a record Federal surplus into a record deficit by failing to raise taxes to pay for two wars. And let’s not forget Dick Chaney the Duke of Halliburton who was always hiding in an undisclosed location just like he did during the entire Vietnam War
It was Obama who got Bin-Laden and who has killed more Al Qaida leaders then the Bush Administration did in 8 years
newt dummy. This is a setup by the dems to divert attention from the lousy economy. Expect more of this garbage. nobody gives a darn where women get put. They joined, let em get shot at.
Witchking you don't understand anything and your little rant proved it. I will start with the simple fact that our budget is a two stage process we take money in and then send it out. What comes in and what goes out is not fixed. We can lose a surplus without ever increasing spending and we can gain one without raising taxes. I will leave it at that, I think the rest may be too advanced.....
The most lethal Marine is a scared WM with a loaded gun...
I was married to one for 23+years...
In today's environment ALL US Military personnel are on the front lines, even in CONUS...
IMO - If they can do the physical work required and deployments associated with the MOS, they should be allowed in the MOS. But not if the Leadership lets them fill the shore/non-deployment billets at the expense of their male counterparts...
None of these two have ever wore the uniform. Neither one of them is qualified to even TALK about war. Santorum probaly would be scared even from fireworks, and Gingrich would be too fat to walk 100 yards without getting a heart attack. They just get off talking about women. Women HATE THEM.
Why can't they just SHUT UP!!!!
Witchking................You misunderstand our revered shrub and his handler the Duke of Halliburton (I like that one a lot):
There is not as much profit in actually winning a war than letting it linger for a few decades. We need to keep the Duke and his minions and their successors in perpetuity (1% Republican job makers) happy with the few 100s of billions in profits that can be gleaned every month from keeping our "country safe" by continuously looking for weapons of mass destruction everywhere in the world.
The GOP circus continues. The party is a joke. Their candidates range from somewhat crazy to absolute whacko. I'm beginning to think President Obama has a couple of high level operatives who have infiltrated the GOP at the highest levels. If Democrats scripted this they couldn't make Republicans look any worse.
Gingrich is right about Santorum. Not only does he fail to understand modern warfare, he fails to understand modern life in general.
Wait until Romney decides it's time to blow Ricky out of the race with a few negative ads. But then, who will be his running mate? Who will capture the Evangelical vote? What a conundrum!!
The GOP circus gets curious-er and curious-er as it goes from town to town.
Wow I agree with Gingrich. (Am I awake). Why is it that the American people will put up with another candidate thats sees women as less. They feel they have the right to dictate to women how they should reproduce, how they should serve their country, and how they should live their life.
Santorum would be terrible for this country. There is a reason people in Penn hate him. Read about it. Even worse, this guy will do nothing for the regular American. We have already seen him with his pork projects that favor his "friends". I would take any of the other candidates on both sides before this little minded fool.
But wait! Gingrich was the one who said that women should not be in the military because they have periods.
Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4TGR5j6v9w
If more people thought like that we would not have such a bloated government!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given your statement, I believe that make Pres. Yomama (er uh... Obama) unqualified as well.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
Apparently the weapon of choice for the religious right is still the jawbone of an ass.
President Obama: How many Americans do they have?
General Chief of Staff: 3 Mr President
President Obama: Send Seal Team 6 In.
President Obama: Attack
Brave President who wants women to have choices and control there own bodies. Enough said.
As a man Picture this.
Your mother had you now that you are a man you want to control your own mothers body. WOW! Not pretty, and disgusting at the same time.
@SickOfTheBickering,
Given your statement you sound crazy.
It's Obama who doesn't understand modern warfare or even the Presidency. He's like an out of control child playing with our nation's stability and future with too much power to know what to do with sensibly. His past 3 years has been an economic and financial disaster with more spending proposals to come in policies that will only further drive our debt higher.
His current budget proposal is another deceptive ruse using a previously in place $1.7 trillion cut as a part of his plan which does nothing to make any new cuts. His Pinocchio ways are getting very tiresome and old as his nose is nearly touching the ground. Only his blind followers cannot see this and or are just like him.
Santorum of any one of the current candidates can only do much better, even
Aw, come on, Newt! Everyone knows you're a lover, not a fighter. ;)
Tad: I am truly impressed, three paragraphs, 12 talking points straight from conservative talk radio and not one coherant thought.
I'd never thought I would say this, but Newt Gingrich is right. Rick Santorum really does not have a clue about the modern military. The present military notions of the proper roles for men and women are derived from the experiences of the leadership in Congress, most of whom grew up in the 50's and early 60's. They have failed to realize that women are absolutely capable of fulfilling EVERY position available. Will every woman be able to every job in the military, no. Nor would every man be able to do every job.
Rick Santorum's views on the proper role of men and women are from the '90's, that is the era he wants to take America back to.... the 1590's. The same era which had America under the control of an aristocratic few, the poor were serfs who knew there place and the middle class did not exist.
Santorum is a hypocrite and a Phony that would take women's right's away, he thinks birth control is evil and said he would make it illegal. Rick and his wife are two-face Phonies when Rick's wife had a six and a half year affair with a abortion doctor. This family is drawing flies.
The people of Pennsylvania kicked this loser Santorum out on his ass because of his poor performance. Wake up, this guy will destroy this Country.
Jolly says, "This is a setup by the dems to divert attention from the lousy economy." Jolly, we don't have to set up a thing. The morons you call Presidential nominees are quite capable of tearing themselves down without our help.
The entire republican party with the help of the tea party are self-destructing... They are not the party of Reagan... As a matter of fact Reagan would be the Huntsman of today...
Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney are completely out of touch... It's not about warfare, it's about jobs... It's not about birthers, it's about a woman's right to health care... It's not about the tax breaks for the wealthiest, it's about equality for the majority of Americans... It's not about a threat to the sanctity of marriage, it's about equal rights for all Americans...
The republican party just don't get it... Thank heaven that we have a president that does, and he needs to be re-elected this coming November so he can finish the job... He's done pretty good in the warfare dept. as well... Just saying...
Picture this: Santorum fears that mixed sexes could very well just ignore the enemy combatants, due to sudden and uncontrollable horniness, quit fighting and have an orgy, right there, with the enemies bullets flying about them. Seems He can stick the possibility of sexual activity into any considered proposition. Newt, on the other hand, makes a valid argument, at least in his own mind, that such activity would be very normal and acceptable behavior, therefore Santorum really doesn't understand modern warfare. Not long after this pronouncement Newt was seen weeping. Santorum, after hearing what Newt said, went in search of a private place, suitable for masturbation.
Rick Santorum took his wife's dead fetus home from the hospital to pass the dead baby for 8 hours around and sing & dance so everybody could say their goodbyes. The hospital was very upset over this and called law enforcement on rick. The law enforcement said this was a Weird act and took the dead fetus back to the hospital. This guy is a loose cannon and a religious extremists from the Tea-ReTards. This dirtbag is not qualified to be a dog catcher. Its scary we have a nut like this running for President of the United States of America. What happen to this Country, it scares the hell out of me.
Patriotic American
Closest thing to this is his law banning partial birth abortions - really this was banning the killing of 24 week older, because we are able to save those kids on a regular basis. There is one of those partial birth abortion failures out on the lecture circuit permanently maimed because of a failed partial birth abortion. She survived all three legal attempt to finish her off before decency took over and they started taking care of her!
first of all Catholic use "natural" methods of birth control. Santorum never called contraception "evil", but "he doesn't favor it". Let translate - He isn't going to run go out campaigning for it. What he does is promote more unrestrained behavior like multiple partners and teenage sex. Big Difference
He has never attempted to block any funding of these things, nor has he ever written any proposed legislation to stop its distribution. Would he - no - he is on record voting for some legislation Pennsylvania's wanted, because they wanted, even though he was uncomfortable with what his constituents wanted.
True Patriot
If Alan Colmes had to appologize for this type of statement - should you!
Blatant GOP election fraud in Maine? http://youtu.be/pqsyzTrWS0g
Where else has the GOP skewed the results of their own election?!
Brianb-999431 Comment collapsed by the community
Your post is ridiculous. So much so that I have to ask... tongue in cheek or were you serious?
I won't even take the time to discuss. Such a waste of time.
Oh no...Newt...not another flip-flop! Please tell me it isn't so...
Santorum is a first class dope who deserves a job in a muffler shop. Gingrich, on the other hand, understands the potential of casino's on the moon! And you have to have an IQ well past 35 to understand that.
"Rick Scumtorum called birth ccntrol pills "Abortion" and a evil act."
"Control"
DB: you are in WAY over your head...This isn't about late term abortions, which are already prohibited except to save the life of the mother. Santorum would do away with even that exception. You seem completely unaware that the "personhood" amendments Santorum favors would end many types of contraception, that the Roe v. Wade ruling Santorum wants overturned to criminalize all abortions, that the end of all funding for planned parenthood throughout this country, that prohibitions on women in the military, are just a few of his extremist stands that got him rejected in his own district. If these things aren't "control" over women, their reproductive rights and their constitutional rights, than "control" has no meaning. Women know better...even Republican women, than to pine for the days of back alley abortions and before legal contraceptives. That's lunacy. As far right as the Republican Party has become, no extremist like Santorum is going to win the nomination, no matter how weak the other candidates in the party are.
What would newt know other than the modern role of deferment.
Sure he does.
Santorum understands the warfare between the sexes.
"Ron Paul on the fox is dismissing Santorum as a desperate fool of deception"
What Santorum doesn't understand, when he makes statements that women in combat would be a distraction to men, causing them to potentially risk mission accomplishment because of protective feelings the men have towards women, is that people in combat always feel protective towards the person fighting beside them. Call it comraderie, unit cohesion, whatever. That's what you do in combat, always have your buddies backs. That is one of the most basic reasons units are able to accomplish missions in the first place.
Gingrich has a remarkable lack of understanding regarding warfare also. For the last decade, his response to every international dust up - N. Korean nuke test, usual Iranian nonsense, etc - has been to loudly shriek "We Must Invade!"
Right, Newt. Spoken like somebody who really has a grasp on any kind of combat, modern or ancient. Easy spew for some fat pus-head who has no skin in the game whatsoever.
Obama is the one with NO knowledge of the battlefield.
Obama is the one with NO knowledge of the battlefield.
As opposed to Bush? Cheney? Obama accomplished more that both of them draft-dodgers!
Only the Truth? Start living up to your handle.
Gingrich and Santorum are both chickenhawks.
Chicken@!$%# is more in line with their real character.
Rick's head looks like a Chicken's head ?
The former House speaker, who during many campaign speeches refers to himself as a former “Army brat,” said he believes no matter where you are wearing the U.S. military uniform, you are in combat – something Santorum should understand.
“Whatever your technical assignment, whether you’re a truck driver or you’re working with logistics, or you’re a military person, you’re in combat. And I think that we have to understand that from day one,” Gingrich said.
This is such a sad commentary on the state of our nation. We have not been attacked on the Continental US in well over a 100 years, yet anyone in the military is "always in combat". Eisenhower tried to warn us, but we didn't listen. Until we change this, we will continue to run massive deficits and have enemies all over the world. We have more enemies than we did 10, 20, 30 years ago, and it is a direct result of our foreign policy. There is a reason that Ron Paul gets more donations from troops than all the other candidates combined. We need to bring our soldiers home and end this mentality that we should always be in combat.
Read it again, that wasn't what he said.
Moose, Ron Paul gets slightly less donations from military personnel than the President.
Slightly fewer. Bad grammar, Toasty...
Moose8684,
What was 9-11 if not a attack on the USA or the other twin Tower's bombing???
Also research the sinking of the U-352 and note where it was... off Cape Lookout, NC.
Both of the US coast have sights where German U-Boats were sunk. And it was COMMON for US Ships to have been sunk off these coast during WWII...
BTY - The U-352 is a nice dive site...
Ron Paul is nothing more than a squeaky little weeny whacker.
AC,
Moose is one of those "9/11 was an inside job" people!
Hense the Ron Paul association!
Sigh -- another one who has not studied history.
Battle of Ambos Nogales, Battle of Columbus, Black Tom Explosion - In or around the WWI Time frame.
Numerous exercises against the U.S. during WWII in addition to U-352 including Operation Pastorius and Operation Elster by the Germans. The Japanese bombed Ellwood and Fort Stevens ... along with attacking ships off the West Coast in American waters.
1975 - Terrorist Bombing in NYC (may not count, since by Puerto Rican FLAN and they are also American)
1993 - First bombing of WTC
I would have thought 9-11 was obvious.
You don't understand what I am saying, I am not claiming that the WTC center never got attacked, what I am saying is that there was no sovereign nation behind it. You cannot start a war with an idea, which is what we are trying to do. Iraq never attacked us, Afghanistan never attacked us, Iran has never attacked us, yet we support attacking all these countries and wonder why people from the middle east fly planes into our buildings.
"Santorum called birth control pills Murder"
@Toasty(4.2)
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-ron-paul-gets-most-military-donations-020912w/
Obviously you have had your head buried in the sand far too long. Remember 9-11?
PS: All those Libertarians have many of a screw loose. Their aim is to let some Corporation or other to control and provide all Justice Systems, provide the Military Forces, and just about everything else. Consider what that would do to the U.S.!!! There will not be a U.S. because they wish to control all Government down to your Local Government.
If you look closely at all of the Candidates including those that have dropped out of the race, they all hawk Libertarian Doctrines while calling themselves Republicans. Worst yet, they have gone to bed with the Koch Bros. , a most dastardly Corporation(s) since the days of the "Robber Barons".
Actually the facts say otherwise: Ron Paul received $242,507 in 1,405 donations from people who list the military.
President Obama has taken in $130,041 in 1,156 donations from the military.
Source:
Typical Obama followers dont follow true facts.
Also thousands of soldiers and veterans are set to march on the White House on Feb. 20 to show the militaries full support of Dr. Paul. They will be in full uniform and will representing our armed forces. Not for Obama but for Dr. Paul.
Support your troops, Support Ron Paul.
Any military personnel who participate in a political event in uniform are subject to penalties under the UCMJ, which could include courts martial. Veterans, of course would be free to do whatever they want, but no soldier, sailor, marine, air forcer or coast guarder should go even near that demonstration, except in civvies.
Moose, Paul gets more money, but Obama gets more donations.
OK -- then explain away Germany and Japan and Mexico.
Thats funny brianb we already open our own car doors, repell muggers, pull out our own chairs and protect ourselves. what we don't want is for the government to tell us what we can do with our bodies. Its our bodies. We fought long and hard for centuries to be able to be human not chattel. Look at Santorum's wife. She is worn out way before her time. He still looks youthful and she has aged a lot. We're no longer Man's entitlement. the double standard of genders still hasn't ended as is obvious by your post. Ah yes and if they post my picture on here that is me, and that is a power saw, and that was a 12 pulp cord of mixed hardwoods and I cut it up and split it with an axe. and that is a fairly recent picture. so brianb please please vote for Santorum. You had better believe that most of us women won't.
@ Sandra ~ YOU GO, GIRL!!!!!
Rick Santorum is "Weird" RICK said rape victims should think of the babies conceived during their assault as gifts from God.
Just can't get enough of that boy (Sanatarium) I almost hope he gets the nod, so we can watch the Prez tear him up, he's not playing with a full deck!
OBAMA 2012
I am glad to hear that there are women that open doors and pull out chairs for their men.
Only the truth: never seen that have you? Guess you're just used to having doors slammed in your face? Now why would that be?
Only the Truth,
Strange, I am married to a woman who dutifully opened doors, pulled chairs out of the way, and drove my brother where-ever he needed to go. She also sponged bathed him, helped with his catheter, and wiped his butt for him. My brother was paralyzed. Eisenhower, during WW2, had a female driver providing the first three services (and maybe more), but did not hinder his command. Roosevelt had a male attendant and a son assisting him. Maybe, need and respect affect those issues.
But I can tell you this, I am proud of my wife, an ordained minister and prison chaplain. What is the truth of your role in the world? Telling the imprisoned that their husband is divorcing them? That their mother died? That their violation of conduct means probable transfer to hard confinement? Tell me again about your role? Tell me your truth.
Newt Gingrich understands about modern combat, because he's seen "Full Metal Jacket" on Blu-Ray.
"Santorum called the G.I. Bill Welfare"
Santorum may well not understand modern warfare, but Newt, the Georgia pork barrel, pretty much mis-understands everything.
Newt the hoot was a draft dodger during Vietnam hiding out at Tulane behind his children.
Newt the hoot. I like that. What do you call people like Gingrich or Romney who support war but sought and obtained draft deferments during Vietnam? Chickenhawks.
Old Vet - If you check out how many Democrats served versus Republicans you will find a ratio of at least 40 to one
McTurtle by his doctor's prognosis for not being drafted said he had a rare eye desease and would be blind by thirty - I'm still waiting for the seeing eye dog
Barbara--The Republicans think war is fine, as long as someone else fights it. Hate to sound ignorant, but who is McTurtle?
Old Vet - Sorry - that's my name for McConell - can't looking at him without relating to a turtle
During the Clarence Thomas hearings I nicknamed all of the horrid Republicans attacking "my fair lady" Anita Hill - "Lurch" Alan Simpson and so on
They make themselves insignificant so I just help them along with nicknames - like "Mitt" who is really named after his uncle Milton A quirck in my personality
Newt-the-Hoot sounds about right. What a patriot he turned out to be - a Tulane draft dodger seeking endless deferments. All he understands about modern warfare, or guerrilla warfare for that matter, is that someone ends up on the tip of someone else's foresight and he did not want THAT someone to be him.
As for finding some Tulane honey just on the tip of some other body part of his . . . well, Newt knows ALL about that sort of patriotism!
People on this board are great..........."Newt the Hoot" ......"Duke of Halliburton" wish I could think of something that rhymes with or adequately decribes a Santorum (OK I know about the Google one but.........)
Perhaps: "Rectum? Santorum."
How about Santamoron?
I like Sanitarium the best - that's because he belongs in one.
Change hoot to poot and others will better understand.
I like Satanorum, the devil in him !
I guess its time to ask Mr. Santorum whether or not women should vote and whether he thought a women should ever be President.
Well, you know that according to Mr. Frothy, women are too influenced by their hormone's to make a logical, rational decision. That may explain why any woman with an IQ above 90 would vote against their own self interests and support any of the Republican candidates. They are all anti-women!
Good question, Majority American. Someone should ask Ricky if he would consider choosing a woman as his running mate.
I wonder if he knows women can vote now?
Only Ron Paul understands what Gingrich, Santorum, and the neocons consider "modern warfare". Its fighting a tactic by killing and enfuriating even more people who might have otherwise not been affected.
Gingrich and Santorum must be at odds on how to pour gas on the fire.
Are you kidding? Ron Paul is the absolute LAST person I'd trust in an international crisis. I wouldn't give him command of the Salvation Army, much less the US Army.
You must prefer the shoot first, ask questions later type responses of Obama and Bush II then?
Who-- Where has Obama shot first and asked questions later? Please enlighten us. To most of us, he has seemed very deliberate in withdrawing from Iraq and first stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan and now executing a planned withdrawal. In Libya, he worked with allies on a well-conceived plan to take out the dictator at no cost in American lives.
Well....according to research from West Point easten Libya was the home of the highest percentage (per capita) of "insurgents" in Iraq. Remember the rumors of associates of Al Qaida within the Libyan Transitional Council?
As 75% of NATO's budget Obama and the US shot first, questioned the identity of the "rebels" later. At least their identity should have been questioned.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/31/135005554/foreign-policy-teaming-up-with-enemies-in-libya
"Eastern Libya was the home of the highest percentage (per capita) of "insurgents" in Iraq?" WTF? Really man, in terms of syntax, that's just nonsense. I'm sorry, but I can't make sense out of what you wrote, so it's very hard to respond. I went to the link. It shows that 111 insurgents in Iraq came from Libya. A whopping 111. And what does that have to do with anything? Please clarify, if you can.
Yeah, 111 and most of them were to be suicide bombers. We support them, or the troops? both? If you read the story and don't understand the dilemma then get off the Obama train for a few days and read it again.
Sorry for the lack of clarity earlier; got a few other things going.
OK, so 111 now dead suicide bombers came from Libya and there is a chance, very small chance according to the testimony noted in the article, that there may be or have been a small al-Qaeda presence in Libya. So? I would be shocked if there were not a small al-Qaeda presence in virtually every Moslem country. Ghaddafi has been gone for a number of months. We've heard recently from some of his supporters, but nothing from al-Qaeda. I suggest that tells us something. There is no evidence to show that western intelligence did not know of their presence in Libya prior to the NATO engagement or that Obama did not ask the appropriate question like, is the al-Qaeda presence significant? It doesn't appear to be or have been and so he helped NATO rid the world of a dictator despised by his people. Sorry, but Inhofe, and you, are grasping at straws.
Considering the economic struggles of the NATO member countries I fear that the priority was to negotiate natural resources with a strapped and indebted NTC; disposing of the old gate keeper. Wesley Clark already told everyone that this domino effect scenario was going to happen a few years back; the countries listed to be overthrown are being overthrown while we host Saleh of Yemen and let Saudi Arabia bolster Bahrain's monarchy.
All the while all we hear about are the next on that list; Syria and Iran. For democracy? How naive.
Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Obama will just do as they're told.
Quack Attack! Ron Paul must be hiding in your shorts, dood!
Exactly, Old Vet. Republicans will spin it--that's a given-- but Obama has done a stellar job as Commander in Chief. He took out bin Laden in a surgical strike and has captured or killed scores of other top al Qaeda operatives.
He has moved with deliberation against Syria and Iran, wisely choosing non-military intervention in places where it would be counterproductive.
Republicans, can you be honest and give Obama credit where credit is due?
Anyone????
kaybee ~ they never will. Sad, isn't it?
It is easier to smear the accuser rather than answer the charge, isn't it gang?
To you anyone who disagrees with actions under our current president must be a jealous Republican.
That mindset is what is really sad.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10533.doc.htm
To everyone giving Republican candidates military cred,
Ron Paul did serve, as an Army GY/OB who developed new treatments with Army funding, and took them with him to found several clinics. Others have had no/minimal exposure.
Regarding "modern" warfare techniques, most were introduced in the French-Indian colonial war, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War; be it conventional ground combat, or alternative combat. In no case, does the sex of the combatants matter. Female spies were used. Female nurses in combat zones were used. And even female combatants appear.
Today, we have to decide if we are going to discard over half of the qualified candidates, while allowing the rest of our world, including our enemies, the option of recruiting anyone; we have lost. Both female heads of government and flag officers have proven their mettle. But, in America, women cannot advance to combat commands without a combat badge. So a woman can be under fire, defend herself and her fellow soldiers, and even take part in combat; but because they do not have the correct MOS, they cannot advance to combat commands. Despite the fact that they bleed the same blood, feel the same pain and endure as much or more than any man.
Gingrich and Santorum arguing about 'the nature of modern warfare.' Great. Especially since combined they have a grand total of zero days in uniform.
The best recent example of Gingrich's military expertise was when he proposed a no-flight zone over Libya. He subsequently condemned it when the President and NATO imposed it because they actually attacked targets in Libya. As Defense Secretary Gates explained, you first have to suppress the air defenses, then declare the no-flight zone. The alternative is having some planes shot down and pilots killed. Despite his previous position as a national leader, Mr. Gingrich did not know that.
...and don't forget Gingrich talking about Palestinians being a "manufactured" people....This guy is a walking disaster...(but to those used to Republican candidates not being able to complete a sentence, he sure looks like a genius).
sandra-359026 No problem with your post #5, but I do have a problem with your pic, Go Bears...LOL..Just messing with ya...
sandra,
Great post. Sexism is always just below the surface even today in many areas. Now it is part of the GOP talking points.
BTW: Here in MN we have a nice pulbic display of folk art by chain saw artists. Lots of dead elm stumps have been transformed by these artist in to statues that grace our boulevards.
Is that the new Democratic Party slogan? Say no to sexism, and yes to hot, steamy, government-funded sex! Lol
Paul M, what's with you and the 'government funded sex' thing?
I hope you had a good Valentine's Day! *wink wink* ...sounds like you could do with a little yourself...
paul: government funded sex??? Now THAT'S a new wing nut talking point....!
Poor Newt, the ol boy is bashing The next president of the USA. He don't know what to do next. Newt dropped quicker than thermometer stuck in a snowball and His pal Romney is on the way down too. Santorum 2012 , as the late Al Davis would say; Just win Baby
We've come too far on civil rights to let Santorum take us back 100 years.
Sanitarium will have us back in the 50's as quick as he can,
Women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant!
STOP THE INSANITY!
Chortle... guffaw!
Proverbs 16, Santorum as the next President of the United States of America?
I don't think so, my friend.
Mitt would probably be more than willing to bet $10 thousand that won't ever happen.
My fondest wish is for the Republican Party to pick Santorum as its nominee. Obama would win an electoral vote landslide if Santorum heads the ticket. My next fondest wish is that the Republican Party picks Gingrich. Obama would win an electoral vote landslide, but now with as much margin. So, good luck to both of them.
You know, as completely unimpressive as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are, I have to say that at least I have some level of confidence in their ability to handle an emergency. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul would be an absolute disaster in a split-second crisis.
I agree Toasty.
It's a well known fact that if you were with Santorum and didn't have a condom handy, he wouldn't get up and go to the drugstore for you either. ;)
Not a single one of these t-GOP puke punks has a clue what it's like to be fighting -- actually fighting -- in a war, but, they sure like to make it sound like they know how to shoot from their hips -- and their hot-air windbag mouths -- to start one, and lie about why their multi-trillion-dollar wars are necessary.
Oh yeah, Santorum is going to get grilled at the next debate about his women in combat comments, his contraceptives comments and many other things now that he THINKS he is a front runner.
Just look at his older kids, they're probably just counting the days until they fly the coop and have some freedom away from Rick the extremist.
His kids are going to have to change their names...'Santorum' is just too icky.
The only wars Santorum is familiar with are the War on Women and the War on Science...
He also likes to wage war on America's GLBT citizens
And the U.S. He is Corporate all the way. PS: So are all of the others. Google each of the Candidates, past and present, along with the words Koch Bros. Even Herman raced to their bed. Wonder how many have contracted an STD -- T = Treason. Yep, the Koch Bros. are under investigation in their dealings with Iran and N. Korea, and maybe other blacklisted Regimes. Would not put it past them. That may make all of the Candidates guilty of Assisting and Abetting Treason. Might even reach back to some ex-Presidents and Congresspersons.
Romney was right about the bailouts. The money should have come from other more stable companies that had the resources to keep the automakers floating until they got back on their feet, not the government. Of course bankruptcy was also an option to restructure debt just like other companies do.
The press of course jumped on the story and failed to mention that Santorum and Gingrich said the same thing about the bailouts but you have to make news some how and give the analysts an opportunity to earn their pay and inflate the egos. CNN, Fox and MSNBC are full of these so called experts and they all have their own biased agendas.
Lets shape this election the way that benefits us and have fun doing it.
That's exactly the problem. The stable companies like it just that way. One's loss is another mans gain. Greed, selfishness, even with employees. One company would almost never help another company without the possibility of a hostile takeover. In my opinion.
DP-CA - Obviously you didn't listen to the gentleman from Michigan, one of our Congressman who sat in on the meetings of GM's choices of bankrupcy versus bailout - Synopsis - all of their suppliers would not have been paid - the domino theory would have cost thousands of jobs
It wasn't just about GM - factories across the country would have been impacted
So before you speak there was a bigger picture to be considered
DP-CA,
There was absolutely no managed or pre-packaged option for GM when they went through the bailout. I'm not sticking up for the way it ended up being divided (people complaining about the unions getting more than their fair share and bondholders a lower percentage because of it) but people continuing to talk about a managed bankruptcy don't have any idea of the process.
The key component, actually the only component, that must be available for a restructuring is DIP (debtor-in-possession) financing. It's a level of debt that comes in, steps ahead of other creditors, and insures that the company in question can continue to operate. If you'll look at the statistics during the financial crisis you'll see a disproportionately low percentage of Chapter 11 filings (essentially, restructurings) and an extraordinarily high percentage of Chapter 7 filings (essentially liquidations with little or no value given to continuing enterprise valuation). The reason for this, and it's not a secret in the restructuring world, was that there was little or no DIP financing available. And that was for smaller companies (10s of millions of needed DIP financing) with relatively strong sales or assets to secure the DIP financing. No way in the world was there the opportunity to cobble together 85 BILLION DOLLARS in DIP financing. Probably not in a more robust economy, but certainly not given the state of the economy and the banking sector when GM went through their restructuring.
Please keep this in mind next time you hear Romney, Gingrich or Santorum talking about the alternatives. There were two: (i) find a financier (US Government) that could back GM, or (ii) liquidate GM, sending hundreds of thousands of people (GM, suppliers, ancillary providers, etc.) into the unemployment lines and the other fallout that would have come from such a liquidation.
You can have your opinion about whether saving GM was the right thing to do. That's your right. But you and the rest of the armchair economic quarterbacks can't have your own set of facts. That's just wrong.
A lot of people got the jolt of the life when their IRA's and 401's became depleted because of GM's downfall. The elderly took the blunt because they had GM stock for so many years.
You are aware that during the auto industry rescue, the major banks were simply not lending to anyone, right? This would be especially so when the customers had actually filed for bankruptcy. The CEO of Chrysler told the administration that without government guaranteed loans he would have to liquidate the company. It is pure right wing spin to claim that the free market would have fixed everything if left alone. The free market, left alone, actually caused the problem.
Not long ago, Newt taught that women couldn't serve in combat because of "biological problems" every twenty-eight days. Remember that? One wonders if Newt has evolved or if he's just looking at ways of attacking Santorum.
Actually the Republican party thinks we really should be in combat 24/7, They fly into a panic anytime a war ends and they do not have 2-3 more wars on the back burner to send troops into. Virtually every Republican candidate openly told America that if they were President we would be attacking Iran TODAY, When that failed to convince Obama they started going climbing the walls looking for more reasons, Now they are trying to push Iran and Syria thinking maybe Obama wouldn't commit our troops to one needless war because it would not be big enough or cost enough so TWO is better!!!!
In their minds women should not go to war, They should be at home creating more soldiers to die on a field of "honor" for their profit
NO BIRTH CONTROL< NO ABORTIONS< NO GAYS = MORE SOLDIERS!!!!Talk about out of touch!!!!
I fought in two of their wars personally, Under-funded, Under-equipped, Under-planned, Under-needed, Under-mined!!! They had NO intention of winning, NO intention of letting the wars end, NO intention of the troops coming "HOME"
Thank You President Obama for ending the Iraq war despite Republican opposition, Thank You President Obama for putting Afghanistan on a timetable for withdrawal despite Republican opposition, Thank You President Obama for refusing to attack Nations for NO ligitimate reason!!!! If we go to war so be it, But,,,,,,HAVE A REASON!!!!!
Bo--Have you noticed that two of the Republican candidates who want to take us to war avoided war when it was their turn? Both Romney and Gingrich supported Vietnam but sought and obtained draft deferments. Chickenhawks seems an appropriate term.
Did you notice our last Republican President Bush was a deserter and that their "Hero" McCain was given a choice between volunteering for combat duty or a dishonorable discharge before he was captured?
Bo--I didn't know that about McCain. I had a student whose father served on Forrestal. The father said it was McCain horsing around that started the horrific fire on that carrier. I can't independently confirm that.
McCain crashed 2 jets in the Carib while "horsing around" before being shipped to the Med, Where he crashed 2 more jets while "horsing around" At which point even his Daddy could not save him from combat duty and/or dishonoring their family name, He was FORCED into flying combat missons and almost immediately crashed and was captured, Not quite soon enough considering the Forrestal incident
Bo - Also McCain could have been released from Hanoi Hilton - but couldn't because he made 30 tapes for the enemy - his room mates nick named him "Song Bird" He still is fighting not to release those tapes
Thank you Bo for a great post.
I agree, great post Bo.
All of the above 'warriors' smeared a true soldier, John Kerry. Their 'swift boat' tactics were dishonest and cowardly...not qualities one looks for in a Commander-in-Chief.
Barbara: not that I don't agree that the Republican party candidates are all out to lunch on this and other issues, but I certainly do not agree that Senator John McCain, who I disagree with on most issues, can be faulted for breaking under torture. For heaven's sake...can we not agree on some level of decent discourse?
bo,
thank you for you posts and for your service.
I've never been in combat, but I have stood a midwatch or two
Santorum is a better debater than all of the 3 other guys put together and also better than Barrack Bin Laden. I am sure when the next debate comes along He will be well prepared and I can assure you He will ask Mitt [flip- flop] Romney about the comment He made," I am not concerned about the very poor" what kinda clown says that lol. With all the money Mitt has He should take some speaking courses He is a true idiot.
Proverbs--I'm cheering for Ricky. The Republicans need to stand for principle. Do not let those who say that electibility is the first priority. Maintain ideological purity.
Old Vet
Me too. Because then the election will be a real 'shellacking' and I can relax. The only reason the Republicans worry about 'electability' is that they know the majority of Americans think they are too far right. If they move away from their ideology just for elections then there is no guarentee they won't force that ideology on us because we all know they consider anything over 51% a 'mandate'.
Yep, I hope they stay firm
It's spelled Barack, TeaBubba.
Proverbs...Barrack Bin Laden? (sic)
If you are going to use a moniker that implies Christian leanings...maybe you should ask yourself how Jesus would feel about that slanderous lie of yours.
Hypocrite much?
The majority of Americans know they are too far right.
The majority of American voters are women. We fought to get the vote and we're not about to lie down and let the misogynists of the GOP trample all over our rights.
Proverbs: Santorum was shellacked by voters in his own district who found him far too extreme to hold office. That doesn't tell you anything about your hero?? PS: who the heck is "Barrack Bin Laden"?
Kaybeetoys the only difference between Osama bin laden and Barack Obama is that Obama's ears are bigger. Not hypocrite just facts. They are both evil and have bad intentions. The thought of allowing a Muslim president [you can tell me all day long that he is not, but you are just fooling yourself] in this country is disgrace to not only God but the founders of this great country. I can see that you and many others on here are running scared to just the thought of having a Christian President with good morals. At the end of the day God will make the decision on who will run this country and you can bank on it that it will be Rick Santorum. Funny how he came out of no where and all of a sudden He is top man, makes you wonder could it be The Divine plan to save this nation, I have faith it is and so do many others. But do not worry there is still hope for you and others like you, maybe once you except the fact there is a God.
Proverbs 16...I'm sure (?) you mean well, but you need to go back and re-read the New Testament, focusing closely on 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'
It is people like you who give your religion a bad name. Jesus would be saddened to see how his teachings have been ignored and his message twisted.
Kaybeetoys- nice try, but truth is I am 100 percent that loving thy neighbor does not include radicals and people trying to take God out of our country a.k.a. Obama, This country is in bad shape due to the fact that people like you fell for the lies and deception of a man that has done nothing but make this country weaker and is doing so each day He is in office. A man trying to change constitutions and amendments, cut back on our defense spending so we can be more vulnerable for His Muslim counterparts. Wake up sister while you still have time. before we become a socialist country and have a dictator instead of freedom.
These are the people who want to set this country back to the Cold War, WTF do they know about modern warfare?
They do not want a "cold" war Jim, They want WAR!!!! Even Reagan did his best to provoke Russia into a full blown war, He wasn't trying to "end" anything, Russia just wanted no part of his ignorance.
Remember the Dubya Principle: A President is just not successful unless he's a War President.
Old Vet Amen brother, this country needs a good lesson in morals and to bring God back in this country, it was built on God and morals and now we have a radical president who wants to mess with Religion, He opened a bees nest on that one. 4 more years of Barrack Bin Laden and we will lose a lot more.
You almost fooled me their. Good one.
Proverbs, would that be the God and morals that were used to justify slavery? Does slavery make your chest puff up with pride?
Wow, Could you be further off base if you had been in a coma the past 10 years?? I doubt it!!
This Country was founded to ESCAPE organized Religons and founded on FREEDOM OF RELIGON
So that we can worship GOD, Budda, Allah, Or a damn coke bottle if we so please!!!
Organized Religon followed our founders here and have been oppressing society every since
Proverbs, would that be the God and morals used to justify making Native Americans walk halfway across our blessed country? Does that make your chest puff up with pride?
Proverbs 16 is baiting us. He's getting us all riled up to volunteer for President Obama. Good Job Proverb.
Who is going to tell Proverbs I was being sarcastic in 21.1?
Proverbs - I suggest you find an island to populate because sir you are living in the 17th century
Old vet
Having read you posts for a while I caught it. :)
Bo you do know the first people from Europe mainly England that came here were the Pilgrams right? You also do know that they leave to escape organized religions, but to get away from religious persecution right? I guess you forgot about that, but my main questions are; Are you saying that our Founding Fathers were not men of God? Are you saying they didn't want Chritianity to have anything to do with our life, or the way we did things, or government? Do you also know what Freedom of Religion means? Also I'm going to go out on a limb here from you comments and think you stand up for the famous Separation from chruch and state right. So last question do you know what that means also?
bin Laden's dead, fool - thanks to Barack. And, FYI, this country was built on freedom of (from) religion, not on 'God'. Proverbs, Hannity the Manatee is making you look like a TeaKook!
dudogger this country was built on freedom of (from) religion? See you liberals don't like history because it always makes you all look really uneducated. First off it's not Freedom from it's of (which means you should be able to practice whatever you like, or not practice as long as it doesn't infringe on others right of belief or non-belief) Second our founding was based on God, it really was. I know your liberal mind can't fathom the thought it was, but like I stated earlier it you would read some history and gain knowledge of how this nation was created and by who and what we were left to take care of, maybe just maybe you could be educated enough to see you're wrong. Here some educational reading for you.
Our nation was created with the concept of separation of church and state, reference to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
John Adams July 4, 1821 “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of the civil government with principles of Christianity.” “From the day of the Declaration, they (the American People) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.”
Fisher Ames (Author of the First Amendment), “Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure; its examples are captivating and noble. In no book is there such good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”
Samuel Chase, “By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”
Benjamin Franklin Congressional Congress, 1787 “In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”
These are just a few references dodogger, there is plenty more where that came from if you would like to continue on your debate.
Irony and sarcasm are lost on the weak-minded.
Better just to keep an eye on them and don't get too close.
Religion is not to interfere with government, TRH. It works both ways.
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." ~ Thomas Jefferson
No where does it say that, it's the other way around government is not to interfere with religion, again history. That's why the first came here because the government of England would not let them practice their own faith, that would carry on to our Founding Fathers. All you are doing in the two quotes you post is trying to post one part to benefit your argument and not the rest that they said. This (pseudo-)quotation has been circulating since at least 1997, and possibly since the 1960s or 1970s, but it is not found in Franklin’s works. Sometimes it is given as “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches” or “A lighthouse is more useful than a church,” but no form is authentic. This is probably intended as a summary of something Franklin is said to have written to his wife on 17 July 1757 after a narrow escape from shipwreck off the English coast. This letter appears to have been lost, but an excerpt that appears in a footnote on p. 133 of the 1818 edition of Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin: "The bell ringing for church, we went there immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house." As for the second quote by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was always reluctant to reveal his religious beliefs to the public, but at times he would speak to and reflect upon the public dimension of religion. He was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.
So kaybeetoys read in between the lines not just some single line quote you picked off of google because what I have told you now are their explanations and thoughts of what was going on at the moment. So if you would like to continue with this, please give me what you have next to counter me.
This is the part you religious types don't get, so I will put it in all-caps for you:
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR RELIGION--WHATEVER IT IS--ON ANYONE ELSE.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
The founding fathers were smart enough to know that religion is a man-made construct and that it evolves, as do all man-made institutions. They understood that if the citizens of this country were to live in harmony, it was necessary to remove religion from government.
If you are right, then why are certain religious practices outlawed in the U.S.? Polygamy? Human sacrifice? Your religious beliefs do not trump the law. Abortion is legal in the U.S., for example, even though it is against the dogma of the Catholic church. If a Catholic chooses not to have an abortion, that is her right. It is NOT her right to tell any other woman that she cannot have a legal abortion. The majority of Americans agree with Roe v. Wade.
This is the part you liberal non-religious types don't get, so I will type it in all caps for you,
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR NON-RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON RELIGION. MAINLY CHRISTIANITY.
Yes just like I posted earlier it is freedom of religion, which also means freedom from it, but your type continue to push your views and mock the ones that believe in God, continue to say that we are idiots and pawns of a church and it's all make believe and God is nothing but a made up friend. What is weird is your type continues to say we are trying to push our beliefs on you but I barely, rarely see articles, comments on articles that show Christians pushing our faith on you, they usually they state what they believe and here comes your type, oh yeah God the made up myth and fairies that come and visit you blah blah blah. See most Christians do follow the turn the other cheek teaching, but we have turned the other cheek so many times, we have gotten tired of it. Unfortunately a lot of us do not see another way, then to choose someone that will protect our belief from your types and other religions, even if most of us do not agree 100% with what they are trying to do and being ultra conservative to the point where it offends us, once again we see no other choice. So connected to your abortion comment, yes majority agree with Roe v Wade, and guess what this might come as a shock to you but a lot of people that are part of that majority are Catholics too, and Christian as well. It seems in most cases, most people of faith have matured or grew up with times faster then the church and your type of people. On another note, for you to say the Founding Fathers thought religion was a man-made construct, is funny because I thought I recommended that you actually read up on the Founding Fathers and see what their true thoughts were. They left plenty of writings, speeches, quotes ( When I say quotes please once again don't google something and use one line of the quote like you did earlier) that will disprove you in that comment you just made. Onto your other question on why certain practices are outlawed, I would like you to really think about those two you wrote there. Think really hard, now I'll give you a hint on maybe just maybe why they are illegal. Would someone in the faith of Christianity do polygamy, or human sacrifice? No, Christianity is one man, one woman in marriage, you know the whole till death do us part. But in other religions it is acceptable and encouraged to have multiple wives or husbands but haven't heard anything about multiple husbands before, hey it's the 21st century anything is possible I guess, but not acceptable to Christianity. Human sacrifice, again some other religions might practice and preach about it to make their Gods happy, because usually human sacrifice is for polytheist religions, but in Christianity we have one true God and his son is Jesus. So if you really, really think about it, most of the laws concerning those similar issues and other laws that were passed before our time that continue on today and some laws passed today are closely associated with ties to Christianity and it's teachings.
Proverbs 16: I have always thought that this Country was Christian. Not one of the Libertarian-Republicans is a true Christian. Either they never heeded the words of Jesus and His Disciples such as Mark, Matthew, and Luke, or they dropped their meanings to listen and obey those of their new Master.
What comes out of their mouth isn't truly even from the Old Testament and certainly NOT from the New Testament.
Just as I suspected, your argument is a personal one, in defense of your own particular religion.
Sorry...I don't understand what you were trying to express in that sentence.
...and now we come to your actual point. You believe that the United States of America is a Christian nation.
It is not.
While the current majority of American citizens either practice various forms of Christianity or were raised in the Christian tradition, the U.S. has no official religion. People of all religions are entitled by law to practice their beliefs, so long as they do not harm others or contravene the law of the land. Those who do not wish to practice any religion or join any church are not forced to do so.
This means a lot to me. I lived in Saudi Arabia, where a state-sponsored religion does exist (and I guarantee, you would not be happy being forced to practice it). My ancestors were Quakers who came here more than 300 years ago seeking freedom from religious persecution.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America grants every citizen freedom of religion. It is the founding principle upon which this nation was built. I believe in it wholeheartedly and unequivocally. You might want to come to grips with the reality that we all have freedom of religion in this country.
That would be the Christian thing to do, wouldn't it?
TRH86: It wasn't that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist, which he certainly was not, but that he didn't believe in how the Roman Catholic Church corrupted the New Testament by leaving out certain Books and re-writing other passages to their personal beliefs. Even King James committed the same offenses.
Another item with Jefferson, was the fact that he also read from his personal Koran even tho he wasn't of the Islamist Faith.
Please read my comment above. This is not a Christian nation. The U.S. has no official or state-sponsored religion. We are all free to practice our various religions or to practice no religion. We are guaranteed that right by the First Amendment.
Why is this news?
Jefferson read the Koran because he was an intelligent, enlightened, open-minded and tolerant man. He set a great example, didn't he?
Newsflash:
Just in! Americans have been granted Freedom of Speech by the First Amendment!
How is stating the fact that separation of church and state means that religion cannot impose its dogma on government an imposition on you or your practice of your religion?
You should be eternally grateful that no religion can control our government in the U.S....what if the controlling religion was something other than what you believe in?
Superstitious pablum for the stupid.
Christians believe that we are - or were - a christian nation. The argument for this is simple: it was founded by christians. The ramifications of this simple argument are far-reaching, for they believe that they, as christians, have a more profound insight into the intentions of our Founders. Think of this like the Harley Davidson rider’s creed: if you aren’t one, you wouldn’t understand. And in the mind of any christian with this belief, it is simply impossible that our christian Founders could have intended a society or government which did not follow christian principles.
With this insight into the motivations of our Founders, christians argue that the foundation and intent of our constitution was to establish christian principles as the governing law of the land - no matter what they actually wrote down on paper and signed.
The religious convictions of our founders has been widely generalized, but even assuming that our government was founded by bible-believing, god-fearing christians, the idea that they must therefore have tried to inscribe their religion into this country’s founding documents and laws is grounded in an astonishing view, and one that should offend every honest christian in the country when they realize it. For it essentially argues that even though our founders attempted to be fair and equitable in their governmental creation, because they were christians they could not have been. The argument is that christians, even those who were at the time persecuted by other christians from a different country, would not have been capable of espousing freedom of religion as written in our constitution.
And how are these christians so sure that they know this of our founders? The answer is obvious: because they themselves currently would not be capable of it.
Snakebone: there may be Christians ignorant of their country's history who believe this is a "Christian" nation, but that doesn't make that claim true.
Snakebone, I understand what you are saying. Perhaps the founding fathers did indeed frame the Constitution with "Christian principles" in mind, principles such as tolerance, generosity, and love for one's neighbor. (Christian principles that are in short supply these days, apparently.)
But I strongly disagree with with TRH that their intent was to create a Christian nation or exclude non-Christians from enjoying the same rights and freedoms as Christians. Having suffered religious persecution themselves, and having realized that new religious doctrines were likely to spring up in the future, they wanted to avoid the situation they had left behind in the Old World and begin their new country with a foundation of tolerance.
Our founding fathers were enlightened and well educated. They were thinkers and revolutionaries. The nation they created was novel and unique, and the document that granted us our liberty was a ground-breaking work of genius, crafted to stand the test of time.
Morality is not the sole province of Christianity, as some seem to believe.
The very people who today wish to assert their religious rights as having precedence over any other's seem unaware that in denying rights to others, they open the door for their own rights to be usurped.
kaybeetoys I do not understand what you are strongly disagreeing with me on? No where in my previous posts do I say that their inten was to create a Christian nation or exclude non-Christians from enjoying the same rights and freedoms as Christians. So again I'm going to explain it as simply as I can. Most Christians do not care what you are, what your belief is we don't. All we care about is those rights and freedoms also. You can not stand there and say Christians are not being pushed into a corner about our beliefs. I go to the DMV to get a new ID, when I stand for my photo I can not have my cross that is around my neck showing, I have to tuck it in under my shirt, or if my shirt has any writing on it not just religious symbols, I have to change shirts or cover it up, but if someone of Jewish faith, islam, or hindu goes in there they are not required to take off their burkas, hide their star of david or remove their little cap, or the turbin worn by the hindus. Why because it might offend them, because it's their religious beliefs. Or how about in Deerburn Mich, where a group of Christians went to the islamic parade downtown and after asking a few questions, were harassed, threatened, and intimidated into leaving, this group of people went straight to the police standing there and the police told them the Christian parade is a few blocks down the street and they shouldn't be here. Or how about last year during Christmas season, sorry I meant the Winter Holidays, it Santa Monica where for 60 years churches and groups/people there have had a tradition to play a lottery that allowed to you win some of the 21 display spots in the park there, these churches and groups usually got 14 of the 21 because hardly anyone else would play for the spots, till last year. Unexpectedly atheists won 18 out of 21 leaving the Christians with only 2 spots. They objected to use of the park by churches or religious groups to espouse a religious message, but most of the nativity signs had no words or anything just reconstructions of the three kings and baby Jesus, things like that but the co-president of Freedom from religion foundation says "When the churches and these groups have majority of the signs it's a territoral attempt by them to impose their beliefs in this season, it's like littering, literally littering these spaces." But an example of some of the signs posted by the Atheists; One having a picture of King Neptune, Jesus, Santa Claus, and Satan saying below it "37 million Americans know a MYTH when they see them.", or "HAPPY SOLSTICE" or "Religions are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies." But my main question is where are the signs from the Christians saying if you don't believe you'll go to Hell, or anything that bashes anyone that is not of Christianity. That is what I was saying earlier when I said most of the people of Christianity have matured or grown up faster of the past 2000 years then the churches and your type of people, 99.9% of us don't attack you, don't try to guilt you into our beliefs, don't try to mock you or make fun of your beliefs or non-beliefs, we just move on with our lives and our beliefs and hey you want to be friends it's all good, it's not a problem but if all you want to do is be an A$$ then please out of our way, we're trying to move forward in our lives. So I hope this cleared up some of the confusion you had with my earlier posts. Look forward to your reply.
I think Newt Gingrich wants to be Kingrich. So bad so that he is falling apart in public. He never was worth a crap, but this guy has been to the right edge of world and fell off. Oddly, this may be the first and probably last time I agree with Santorum. The guy made a reasonable argument.
Rick Santorum knows more about torture than John McCain at least that is what Santorum would have us believe.
Ed in Columbus - You might have said that facetiously - however Santorum belongs to the secrete society called Opus Dei a radical right wing of the Catholic Church that believes pain and penance is part of their daily living
He sent his two sons to their school in DC and even though they don't report their membership list they listed in their Iluminati "they have a friend from Pennsylvania who was in Congress"