The opposite ends of the political spectrum are coming together over the war on terror, but not in the way Attorney General John Ashcroft may have wanted.
Some conservative groups are finding common ground with organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, expressing concerns about the effect that the USA Patriot Act and a possible follow-up law, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, could have on civil liberties.
Conservatives criticize Bush's spending, anti-terrorism law
January 25, 2004|By NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
The topic of one panel discussion was "GOP Success: Is It Destroying the Conservative Movement?" and another debated whether the administration's anti-terrorism efforts were endangering individuals' rights to privacy and freedom
Critics in Congress and civil libertarians, including some conservatives, say the Patriot Act was a classic case of overreach, threatening privacy and due process through new powers that the FBI and other agencies had sought unsuccessfully for years
my dear sister pennned, first I hope and pray that you and yours are doing well.
You are moving the pieces on the chessboard. You rightly pin the blame for the implementation of this on the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration and even the Republican controlled congress that authorized it. That however is not what your post (3/28/15 10:20 AM) was lamenting. You were insinuating that conservatives were quiet when it was implemented and only speak up now because there is a liberal in the office. "how come the conservatives are only awake when a liberal is in power" You asked, so I answered.
What both Mike and I said, is that we weren't. The conservatives with whom I regularly associate (who discuss politics) were not okay with the "Patriot Act" because a so called conservative was in office. Now maybe that is not your experience, but please don't paint conservatives with such a broad brush and say when the "right" people were in power we sat in silence.
I don't spend a lot of time criticizing the previous administration here because Jim makes up for that all by himself. The article could be how an asteroid missed the earth by just 600,000 miles and he would find a way to fault Bush.
i am going to take it that you have little or no contact in your life with conservatives. We were all complaining about this stuff from the get go in my neck of the woods and I am sure Mike from NY would say the same. Maybe your definition of a conservative is Jim from Lincoln. Only blind follower posting here is John Yurich.
s c wrote: Unprofitable,I only remarked on the pharmaceuticals,not the gms and the rest. Perhaps I should have qualified my reply by using the word "destroying" instead of "killing". It's very difficult to find many people in their middle ages plus who are not on many prescriptions. Whatever their length in years,they are ailing from all of the side effects from their pills which,sadly,are also a preferred thrill drug for the youth. I know many people who are prescribed drugs only to have to take other drugs to offset the side effects and problems caused by them.
thanks for your clarification, and I agree with your assessment about people on lots of prescription drugs. However I find it in senior citizens not so much in middle age people. That might just be the difference in the people with whom we interact. You are undoubtedly much younger than I. Thanks
If you change the baseline you get different results. The articles I pointed to don't say the U.S. would move to the top spot, they just acknowledged if all other countries in the list were basing their statistics on WHO standard, then the U.S. would move significantly up the list. You can't sit there and say that because Elmer makes 90% of his shots and pennned only 30% so Elmer must be a better shot. If you don't take into account that pennned is 30 feet out from the basket and Elmer is 5 feet away. The changing of what is the baseline skews the results.
If you have no problem with that and want to throw out anything that challenges your point of view, far be it from me to debate the point. It doesn't appear that either of you bothered to check the articles I cited. I asked an open question and I appreciate your answer pennned.
pennned wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/ Title: Our infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment US, no one is arguing that our older generations didn't benefit from improved sanitation. I posted WHO stats before, the more vaccines the higher the mortality rate was for children under 5? looked around at people at the grocery store lately? you should travel, you'd get a comparison. Back to topic: some of these statesmen are looking like lunatics and saying bizarre things, like they aren't even trying to look smart anymore.
It ends up that way when they are not using the same standards. The comparisons are skewed.
technology is not evil, it is just a tool. I can use a hammer for building or destroying, it is just a tool. There is nothing evil about technology. None of us would be posting here without it. The issue is always what comes out from the abundance of the heart. There is a reason the Bible states keep (garrison) your heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life.
Thanks for the great testimony Jessica, I remember days like that growing up. hope you are holding up ok.
Jim Lincoln wrote: What a refreshing change! one of the few instances that I heard from a leader of an organization, who admitted a mistake.
So when will Jim apologize to his pastor for misrepresenting his sermon on the inadequacy of immorality. Nowhere in the sermon is a condemnation of laws that promote morality (you like the ones against murder and theft). Nowhere in the sermon is a plea for legislatures not to pass laws that promote righteousness. (you know like laws that say if you embezzle money you have to pay it back). The main thrust of the sermon is being moral won't grant you entrance to heaven. A belief shared by the large majority of those who post here. I believe he pretty much let on he wasn't going to vote in the upcoming presidential election between Romney and Obama. But it certainly doesn't state what you imply that laws (as if they could be) should be morally neutral. That would be a refreshing change if we never saw the link again used out of context.
John Yurich USA wrote: 1.that church attendance/membership and the Sacraments have anything to do with salvation.
2.It just means that they worship Jesus as God.
1.then why do you continue to practice them like it does? Do you think salvation is a one time "decision" that has no personal effect on one's life? Do you not see it as a continuing process by which one is conformed to the image of Christ? How is attending a church that you admit has false doctrine helping you in living a life pleasing to God? What is more important pleasing John Yurich's comfort zone or pleasing Christ? The fact that you are comfortable living in disobedience to God commands about separation speaks volumes of the genuineness of your faith.
2.Some good quotes about worshiping Jesus as God
a. He is the Holy One of God b. He is the Christ, the son of the blessed One c. Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge d. Jesus is Jehovahâ€™s most precious Son
a. demon Luke 4:34 b. Caiaphas Mark 14:61 c Mormon statement of faith --http://tinyurl.com/pnykkp4 d JW statement of faith --http://tinyurl.com/qxxxa3y
Accurate statements about our Lord doesn't not make one a worshiper of the true Christ.
Follower wrote: Come on Lurker. What is a fool? Or, who is a fool? The fool says in his heart "there is no God." He is the one who talks to no one. Neither does he see anyone coming or going. He questions whether or not he has a brain because he has not seen it. But he suspects that others have brains. Lurker, do you or do you not have a brain??? Where's the evidence?
Brother Lurker is more than capable of answering for himself. I will assume Follower that you may not have been following for very long. If you click on the magnifying glass of the poster (i.e. John Yurich or even brother Lurker) you will understand why he asks John the question he does. I know we all have a tendency to jump in where angels fear to tread. But let me reassure you brother Lurker is worth his weight in gold to the thread and John Yurich needs to be shown the folly of his way before it is eternally too late.
I dunno MS, I would say they are extra-Biblical. Christians in the first century had different sects but not denominations. If I am new to a town and want to attend church, the denominational labels of the churches help to eliminate what I would know up front would be a bad choice. Now I admit that you really wouldn't know until you actually attended a service. But it would a much more difficult task if the choices were First Christian Church, 2nd Christian Church, Pine St. Christian church, etc. Just my thoughts, what do you think?
Oh and to give credit where credit is due, because I ran out of characters in my first post. The first two paragraphs were quotes from different wiki sites and the last paragraph before my comment was from the site that Mr. Rivero has.
Frank, thanks again for your kind and thoughtful remarks.
To borrow a modified Lurker line (used against me nonetheless), now I remember why I avoid posting on these types of stories, I normally just skip them but I stopped to take a look. (my bad) I don't know why I am said to be angry for advising that the site is not a great source. According to my research there is at least 2 times the guy has been caught lying to back up his claims about conspiracies he was putting forth. This is the internet, you can't even guarantee the pictures he used are what he says they are. If pennned and Elmer want to use the site and give it credibility fine, I was just giving my opinion of what I saw, it is just that, my opinion, no anger was intended or felt.
What Really Happened (tagline "Putting America First, Second, And Third!") is a website that purports to tell you (what else?) "what really happened." They promote all sorts of conspiracy theories, especially 9/11 conspiracy theories, Jewish banker conspiracies, the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, global warming conspiracy theories, and various types of pseudohistory and survivalism. Interestingly, they have sections debunking creationism and birtherism (though they put their own spin on it The website's proprietor, Michael Rivero
Michael Rivero (born 29 August 1952) is a radio show host in the alternative media and an anti-Zionist activist from the United States. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Rivero claims to have worked for NASA and was a child actor for a time, he also claims to have worked in Hollywood.
a line from the site--So here is the deal. Some of the people walking around Palestine, Gaza, and the West Bank are blood relatives of Jesus. Distant blood relatives, but still blood relatives. Given 2000 years, it is possible that the vast majority of present day Palestinians are remote relatives of Jesus.
Brother John UK, I have no desire to be a hindrance in this discussion. Brother Lurker is a wise student of the Word from whom we can all learn. My apologies for being an interruption in your discourse, so that we can all learn and that I don't deter the good brother from commenting I am bowing out of any further comments on this thread. God bless
Jim Lincoln wrote: I'm relieved, I thought Rudolph Murdock had bought TIME! You know he's the owner of the Wall St. Journal, and isn't known as a liberal.
better do a tad more research on that one Jim, he endorsed Hillary for Senate and BHO for president (1st term) Also, the WSJ is not a conservative paper, they have a conservative editorial board but the paper runs slightly left of center. Murdoch is all over the place politically. Mainly liberal associations.
Time is your usual left leaning publication that few people read.