DiamondDave

Why must the uber-liberals and US bashers continually lie?

Why is it that those in opposition to the current administration, the effort in Iraq, or even to the United States as a nation, resort to complete fabrication and lies when trying to set their points out there? Shouldn't the arguments, if they are legitimate, be easily supported by TRUTHFUL statements and UNALTERED references?

You can look at historical questions posed in the posting history of ones such as erudite to see examples of what I am talking about.

So I pose the question again. Why is it, if the argument is legitimate, that fabrication and lying must be resorted to?

Does anyone have any insight as to this? In short, it is a "church" that basically a chuch that preaches only liberalism. The acceptance of all religions. Pagans can worship next to Christians who can worship next to wiccans who can worship next to athiests or whatever. They claim to have Judeo-Christian roots, but really shy away from preaching anything Christian. As a matter of fact, when I sat in on a "service" they seems to bash the concepts within Christianity.

My ex-wife started taking my kids to this Church and I severely have my doubts whether this is a good thing for an 11 and 7 year old to be exposed to. If they were adults, with minds of their own, fine. But I do not think I want them exposed to the teachings of wiccanism or the thinking that things like that are OK (other than the fact that everyone has the right as adults to worship whatever they choose)...

It is bad enough when they do not listen to facts. It is also bad enough when they continually re-spout of the same unsubstantiated slogans as they were proof. But it seems a recent trend is to alter copyrighted news stories to make things fit their agenda.

For example:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiQfZ...

I beg of you, whatever party you are or stance you have, do not stand for such things. Report people like this to Yahoo Answers. Debate is one thing, this is quite another.

Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005, says Capt. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.

**********

This is utterly dispicable. People who join the military, knowing exactly what it is about, and then the moment that conflict is around, they desert. This is about as hypicritical as it gets. They want all the benefits without serving to do the duty they signed up for.

What are your thoughts on the appropriate actions to take against these dishonorable "soldiers" when they are caught?

First to answer BOTH of these correctly, will receive the 10 points.

1) In the movie "Back to the Future", who is the person who owned the land in 1955 that was turned into Twin Pines/Lone Pine Mall.

2) On what date did Ronald Reagan state, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

What is the one thing that you hate the most?

Examples:

Use of Steroids

Point Guards that do not pass

Players who put themselves before the team

Tell me.... best answer in my opinion gets the 10 points

Think of this as the official Saddam Hunger Strike Pool. Winner gets 10 points.

I actually find this laughable. Now Ghandi and Saddam actually have something in common!

I have a soon-to-be ex wife of 12 years. She left me. We are on somewhat friendly terms. My kids are still very close with both of us. We each have them equal time. The ex and I are not together in any way, shape, or form.

My kids, of course, want to get something for their mommy. I will, of course, help them get something. Should I get her anything as simple as a card for her being the mother of my kids, or do I just get nothing besides what the kids get for her?

Outspoken farmer gave David Crockett constitutional lesson

The 23rd session of Congress began its morning business one day in 1834 with a vote on an appropriation bill to benefit the widow of a career naval officer. Only moments before the legislation's expected unanimous passage, third-term congressman David Crockett arose.

By the time the man from Tennessee finished speaking, the notion was soundly defeated. However, by offering one week of his own salary and persuading most of his 240 colleagues to follow, the woman actually received more assistance than the bill mandated. To explain this blatant demonstration of political incorrectness, I offer the following parable:

During his first term in Washington, Crockett and several other legislators witnessed a great fire in Georgetown from atop the Capitol steps. The heartbreaking images — freezing people huddled around hundreds of small fires, while in the distance raged the larger fire that rendered them homeless — motivated the lawmakers to appropriate $20,000 for their relief. For days, the smug politicians would bask in the glow of their benevolent achievement. Soon, it was time to seek re-election.

''Well, friend,'' the unsuspecting campaigner called to the farmer at his plow, ''I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and . . .''

''Yes, I know you,'' the man interrupted, ''you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. . . . But you had better not waste your time on me, I shall not vote for you again.''

The stunned incumbent insisted upon learning how to regain the honest man's trust.

''I do not see how it can be mended,'' the man said. ''You gave a vote last winter which shows that you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution. . . . You are not the man to represent me. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine. . . . The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is most dangerous the more honest he is.''

Crockett assured the farmer that if he had been the one with the vote, he ''would have done the same.''

To which the educated man ardently replied, ''The government should have no more funds than it needs. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be trusted to man; particularly under our system of collecting revenue, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress begins to stretch its powers, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.''

''Well, my friend,'' Crockett said, ''I have heard many speeches about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard . . . and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.''

The excellent constituent Horatio Bunce's message to David Crockett continues to ring true: Any government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have.

While we have the right as individuals to believe whatever we want, individuals do not have the guarantee that their belief is "legal", "valid", or "just". The want of the minority is outweighed by the will of the majority.

What makes the younger generations think that just because they want something, the rest of the country should give it to them?