Just a question out there to those who say Obama is Muslim (including the preacher)? Have any of you actually READ the constitution? Specifically Article 6, Section 3?

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Seems to me that it really doesn't matter whether he is or is not. Also seems to me that regardless of how many times the religious right states the USA is a Christian nation based on the bible, the Constitution does not seem to back that assertion up at all.

I read HillBillyJihad post and thought people like him only exist in movies that stereotype the south. Turns out, some stereotypes are spot on!

Guess what HillBillyJihad, no one says you have become gay if the prop passes? Or did you miss that part? Oh right, you are too busy reading Leviticus and practicing your God given right own weapons while doing your best to deny others their rights. Ah, hypocrisy, tis such a lovely place. - - No gays live there (unless you have a wide stance)
- Freedom of speech exists as long as it doesn't disagree with your narrow view
- Citizens are required to loyalty oaths and have their backgrounds thoroughly investigated (why not, after all, if you don't have something to hide)

Send me a postcard!

Very true indeed Danni...his silence is deafening on the question I asked him. It would seem it is impossible for him to actually be anything but a partisan

Theonebs...

I am sure I will find Dodd's name there (though I doubt Obama to be honest). I am sure I would also find Neal Bush and Cheney and Abramhof and bunch of other politicos from both sides of the aisle.

However, you miss the point! It isn't that people are dishonest, we know that. When you deregulate EVERYTHING this types of corrections are bound to occur. The problem is, these corrections can ruin people's lives.

Less regulation is a good thing, but no regulation is not a good thing at all.

The chicken little argument is good, I cannot deny. To be clear, I do not think the sky is falling. But to state things are sound when three MAJOR financial institutions fail (these companies survived the depression for God Sakes) and three more on the verge is borderline delusional.

Now, since you brought liberals into it (which I did not), ask yourself this? If Al Gore had been president for the last 8 years (6 of which with democratic congress), what would your response be to all the financial news that has come out of wall street this year? Can you HONESTLY say that you would not have been would not have been chicken little? You would have CRUCIFIED Obama for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Remember, Denial is not a river in Egypt

When unemployment had been running as low at 3%, yes, doubling that number is not good.

I would also be quite curious to know what the total payroll is of all the jobs now versus all the jobs ten years ago adjusted for inflation. Call me crazy, but I don't think a job as a wal mart greeter has the same earning potential as a job in IT.

And Wall Street nonsense? Are you that blind? This Wall Street nonsense you are referring to will very likely cause the very large banks to reduce the amount of money they lend to smaller banks which in turn will mean less credit available to the consumer to buy cars, houses, etc...

Oh, but the fundamentals of the economy are strong! Keep repeating it over and over. By the way, Wapner's on at 330 and KMart sucks...

The fundamentals of our economy our strong? What fundamentals might those be?
6+ % unemployment
Bear Stearns GONE
Lehman Brothers GONE
Merrill Lynch GONE
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG hanging by a thread
Oil STILL above 100 a barrel
9.6 TRILLION in outstanding Debt

So, would someone explain to me what these "fundamentals" are?

I do not care in the least, nor does the US Government as far as I can tell.

You are the one who made the statement that "we have gone to war so every iraqi can become apart of a christian state. I find it humorous that you ignore the difference."

I was simply pointing out how ridiculous that statement is, nothing more.

Did I miss a memo?

I am no fan of the Iraqi war (a distraction to say the least). However, when has the US EVER stated or even implied, overtly or covertly, that they are attempting to create a Christian state in the middle east? Show a link, a quote, something!

Seriously, if the US wanted to do that, they would have invaded Lebanon which has a fairly large Christian population. I do not know the number of Christians in Iraq, but I expect it is quite small.

Are you that obtuse Goblin?

Their enemies were the over 10,000 British troops stationed in the north and the RUC. The real battle was over civil rights and fairness. Catholics were poor and heavily discriminated against in the North by the Protestants who were significantly wealthier and controlled ALL the positions of power.

If we follow your logic...

Were the Iraqis Arab or not? Well then this must be a war against Arabs and not against Radical Islam.

Glad you cleared that up for the class...

Sully...you are spot on! Good to see someone knows truth from fiction!

As far as the IRA being a religious organization, absolutely false. Their objective has always been a united Ireland (26 + 6 = 1). So to compare them to Al Qaeda or Hammas or any other Islamic group is completely incorrect. Those groups want to establish a Muslim Caliphate or destroy Israel or both. The IRA did not call for the destruction of England (though they wouldn't have minded it I am sure), nor did they call for the creation of a Catholic state that everyone in the world should be a part of.

That being said, when they became a para-military organization in the 60's they became little different than any other terrorist group regardless of their stated goals.

I am no fan of FoxNews, but Brit is definitely closer to being "Fair and Balanced" than most on that network and far more than Oberman, Matthews, and Dan Rather (when he was on CBS).

Creation Science? Are you serious? Why should a theological concept be taught along side a theory (and I agree it is a theory) that actually has gone through a scientific vetting process.

I am trying to determine what scientific processes were used to support Creation Science? Beyond the book of Genesis of course, which is the word of God so is therefore 100% factual. I must admit, never could quite figure out how Cain found a wife to marry after killing Abel, oh well, simply details. Oh, I would love to see how an Ark could carry EVERY species of animal (two by two) and then even if that were true, how could these two animals reproduce without massive in-breeding and the birth defects that follow. Once again details, after all, they are "scientists", details like that simply do not matter.