President Obama quoting scripture

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The man who sat in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years and wants to force the little sisters of the poor and other religious organizations to violate their religious beliefs has no moral authority whatsoever when it comes to using scripture.

But therein is where lib/progs have the biggest advantage. They are completely unencumbered by any moral authority, honor, the law, process or that dated little document called the Constitution. They are the absolute masters of situational ethics and they have no problem whatsoever lying, cheating, being enormous hypocrites anything else as long as it delivers a win for their team.

So, everyone who disagrees with you is evil?

Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension but why should that surprise anyone. You're such a shallow twit you think partisanship is to blame for all the divisions in Congress and ignorantly refuse to see that it is just a symptom of the those divisions.

Blue with Ichy it's all one way on the partisanship. It's always the republicans that are partisan and using rhetoric, or more specifically the conservatives.

Of course but dont forget he's a "conservative" :-\ In his stunted world view everything would be fine if politicians just came together and sang kumbayah. James Madison said partisanship is healthy and the country is better because of it. It pits ambition against ambition. Im going to explain that so itchy wont completely miss the point. It means that politicians, by nature, have a lot of bad ideas and it is essentially the only way one bad idea can be stopped by another bad idea.

According to many of itchy's views on big business, i would argue that if business owners arrived at a consensus like itchy expects of politicians he would be the first to call it collusion.

Yes, I am sure that is exactly what Madison meant. I am sure he saw people in the government childishly and continuously bitching at one another as highly constructive. I am sure he would love a two party system in which the primary goals of the parties reflects the interests of the party, not the interests of the United States.

I am never amazed by your self serving oversimplification of partisanship.

Lets examine further

Heres what was passed on a bipartisan basis...No Child left behind which Geo Bush signed saying he believed parts of it were unconstitutional. Your favorite, The War Resolution to invade Iraq and, Wall St bail outs.

Heres what passed as a result of partisan hegemony.

The automotive bail outs, Green energy stimulus, Obama Care and a failed stimulus package.

So, in your infinite wisdom maybe you can explain how much better the bi-partisan legislation is versus the partisan power plays. Pick one..like I said, as it has turned out none of them were any good.

I do not believe we can casually look at these in the way you suggest. It would be extremely time consuming to dissect legislation and attempt to figure out who voted how, and why. What I would say though is this. All of the legislation you mention is recent history. I think recent history would support the idea that the parties exist primarily to further themselves and their power. BOTH parties operate as businesses who answer to individual, and common, special interests. Perhaps that explains poor legislation. If you truly want to dissect a piece of legislation, I would suggest Medicare Part D.

I think your partisanship clouds your view, of my view, of partisanship. There is nothing wrong with aligning yourself with one party or the other. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to blindly follow either party or any ideology. In a dynamic world, the answers won't always fit into a box defined by the past. There is nothing wrong with politically leaning in any direction until, you stop thinking critically about your own leanings. It is absurd to think, "we are the good guys, they are the bad guys".

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The man who sat in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years and wants to force the little sisters of the poor and other religious organizations to violate their religious beliefs has no moral authority whatsoever when it comes to using scripture.

But therein is where lib/progs have the biggest advantage. They are completely unencumbered by any moral authority, honor, the law, process or that dated little document called the Constitution. They are the absolute masters of situational ethics and they have no problem whatsoever lying, cheating, being enormous hypocrites anything else as long as it delivers a win for their team.

So, everyone who disagrees with you is evil?

Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension but why should that surprise anyone. You're such a shallow twit you think partisanship is to blame for all the divisions in Congress and ignorantly refuse to see that it is just a symptom of the those divisions.

Then please, allow me to rephrase the question. Is everyone who disagrees with you evil and/or ignorant?

Are you so shallow you cannot understand i am talking about politicians, most notably, liberal politicians in Washington? Are you going to argue this admin has not lied with reckless abandon to further implement their agenda? Are you going to mindlessly argue they are not colossal hypocrites when they start quoting scripture? Are you going to argue they dont cheat when they changed the rules in the middle of the night to get ObamaCare passed with 51 votes instead of the required 60?

No. Then again, I am not going to forget that you can make the same statements about the Republican Party as well.

Maybe it is time to think about yourself as shallow and hypocritical?

Well name one instance. I have named several and can point out more if you wish.

And as far as cooltigger helping me goes....Of ALL the things I could use, I dont need any help when it comes to pointing out your silliness.

Don't get defensive. It's none of my business. I just think it is cute and very sweet.

Defensive? You are a typical liberal twit and the exact type of useful idiot the Jonathon Grubers of the left depend on.

Attempt to post something meaningful. This is just a rhetorical opinion. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

Its just another symptom of the left having mastered situational ethics but posing as a conservative simply isn't working for itchy. The fact is I have never even seen him attempt to defend a conservative belief and by contrast have never seen pass on defending all liberalism. With him, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck springs immediately to mind.

You don't pay attention. You can't. You have this crazy notion that you don't need to. You already know everything. Foolish.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The man who sat in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years and wants to force the little sisters of the poor and other religious organizations to violate their religious beliefs has no moral authority whatsoever when it comes to using scripture.

But therein is where lib/progs have the biggest advantage. They are completely unencumbered by any moral authority, honor, the law, process or that dated little document called the Constitution. They are the absolute masters of situational ethics and they have no problem whatsoever lying, cheating, being enormous hypocrites anything else as long as it delivers a win for their team.

So, everyone who disagrees with you is evil?

Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension but why should that surprise anyone. You're such a shallow twit you think partisanship is to blame for all the divisions in Congress and ignorantly refuse to see that it is just a symptom of the those divisions.

Blue with Ichy it's all one way on the partisanship. It's always the republicans that are partisan and using rhetoric, or more specifically the conservatives.

Of course but dont forget he's a "conservative" :-\ In his stunted world view everything would be fine if politicians just came together and sang kumbayah. James Madison said partisanship is healthy and the country is better because of it. It pits ambition against ambition. Im going to explain that so itchy wont completely miss the point. It means that politicians, by nature, have a lot of bad ideas and it is essentially the only way one bad idea can be stopped by another bad idea.

According to many of itchy's views on big business, i would argue that if business owners arrived at a consensus like itchy expects of politicians he would be the first to call it collusion.

Yes, I am sure that is exactly what Madison meant. I am sure he saw people in the government childishly and continuously bitching at one another as highly constructive. I am sure he would love a two party system in which the primary goals of the parties reflects the interests of the party, not the interests of the United States.

I am never amazed by your self serving oversimplification of partisanship.

Lets examine further

Heres what was passed on a bipartisan basis...No Child left behind which Geo Bush signed saying he believed parts of it were unconstitutional. Your favorite, The War Resolution to invade Iraq and, Wall St bail outs.

Heres what passed as a result of partisan hegemony.

The automotive bail outs, Green energy stimulus, Obama Care and a failed stimulus package.

So, in your infinite wisdom maybe you can explain how much better the bi-partisan legislation is versus the partisan power plays. Pick one..like I said, as it has turned out none of them were any good.

I do not believe we can casually look at these in the way you suggest. It would be extremely time consuming to dissect legislation and attempt to figure out who voted how, and why. What I would say though is this. All of the legislation you mention is recent history. I think recent history would support the idea that the parties exist primarily to further themselves and their power. BOTH parties operate as businesses who answer to individual, and common, special interests. Perhaps that explains poor legislation. If you truly want to dissect a piece of legislation, I would suggest Medicare Part D.

I think your partisanship clouds your view, of my view, of partisanship. There is nothing wrong with aligning yourself with one party or the other. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to blindly follow either party or any ideology. In a dynamic world, the answers won't always fit into a box defined by the past. There is nothing wrong with politically leaning in any direction until, you stop thinking critically about your own leanings. It is absurd to think, "we are the good guys, they are the bad guys".

I prefer simply observing and learning and making my decisions based on my own observations. America is best served when the federal govt does the least. Partisanship is one way of keeping a bunch of stupid ideas from becoming law. You seem to disagree with that because that was my central point when comparing what had actually been done via bi-partisan efforts and what had been done strictly along party lines. All of it essentially sucked. I can say that, sadly you wont.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

Its just another symptom of the left having mastered situational ethics but posing as a conservative simply isn't working for itchy. The fact is I have never even seen him attempt to defend a conservative belief and by contrast have never seen pass on defending all liberalism. With him, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck springs immediately to mind.

You don't pay attention. You can't. You have this crazy notion that you don't need to. You already know everything. Foolish.

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

Its just another symptom of the left having mastered situational ethics but posing as a conservative simply isn't working for itchy. The fact is I have never even seen him attempt to defend a conservative belief and by contrast have never seen pass on defending all liberalism. With him, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck springs immediately to mind.

You don't pay attention. You can't. You have this crazy notion that you don't need to. You already know everything. Foolish.

Not everything, just more than you and that's the topic in this thread. Got it?

[TheBlueVue 177]

The man who sat in Jeremiah Wrights' church for 20 years and wants to force the little sisters of the poor and other religious organizations to violate their religious beliefs has no moral authority whatsoever when it comes to using scripture.

But therein is where lib/progs have the biggest advantage. They are completely unencumbered by any moral authority, honor, the law, process or that dated little document called the Constitution. They are the absolute masters of situational ethics and they have no problem whatsoever lying, cheating, being enormous hypocrites anything else as long as it delivers a win for their team.

So, everyone who disagrees with you is evil?

Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension but why should that surprise anyone. You're such a shallow twit you think partisanship is to blame for all the divisions in Congress and ignorantly refuse to see that it is just a symptom of the those divisions.

Then please, allow me to rephrase the question. Is everyone who disagrees with you evil and/or ignorant?

Are you so shallow you cannot understand i am talking about politicians, most notably, liberal politicians in Washington? Are you going to argue this admin has not lied with reckless abandon to further implement their agenda? Are you going to mindlessly argue they are not colossal hypocrites when they start quoting scripture? Are you going to argue they dont cheat when they changed the rules in the middle of the night to get ObamaCare passed with 51 votes instead of the required 60?

No. Then again, I am not going to forget that you can make the same statements about the Republican Party as well.

Maybe it is time to think about yourself as shallow and hypocritical?

Well name one instance. I have named several and can point out more if you wish.

And as far as cooltigger helping me goes....Of ALL the things I could use, I dont need any help when it comes to pointing out your silliness.

Don't get defensive. It's none of my business. I just think it is cute and very sweet.

Defensive? You are a typical liberal twit and the exact type of useful idiot the Jonathon Grubers of the left depend on.

Attempt to post something meaningful. This is just a rhetorical opinion. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Hurt my feelings? Then, "post something meaningful" after you posted about how "sweet and cute" it is that other conservative in this thread agree with me and think you're a phony? Alrighty then

[quietfan 233]

Does the President have the moral authority to quote scripture?

Scripture is its own moral authority and the voice of any human quoting it cannot add or subtract from that moral authority.

Scripture itself says we are all flawed or sinners, so who decides at what level of imperfection one has crossed the line of being disqualified from quoting scripture?

Is this analogous to a President overturning Roe-v-Wade?

Not at all. R-v-W is a SCOTUS decision, and according to SCOTUS (which is the final authority for such in our system of government) protects a Constitutional right. No President or Congress can unilaterally override the Constitution or take away our Constitutional rights.

A long history of many similar unchallenged executive orders by many Presidents regarding immigration implies that, unless and until a court rules otherwise, this is not a Constitutional issue or usurpation of Constitution authority on the part of the executive branch. Bringing up Roe-v-Wade is a red herring or a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I have no problem with ANYONE quoting scripture. I would have a problem, based on the 1st Amendment, with anyone--President, Congress, or otherwise--acting on the basis of scripture alone to override the secular political process and/or the Constitution.

For those offended by Obama's remarks, that's fine. Just say "I am offended that the President quoted Scripture". I see no need for outrage, histrionics, or name calling by either side of this debate. Ditto for all who agree or disagree with the President's actual actions on immigration.

[AUUSN 823]

In before Blue posts with another emoticon playing a violin!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

CT, "Pretending" is your opinion. However, I respectfully ask you to consider what conservative really means. IMHO, the roots of conservatism aren't based in ideology as much as they are based in the belief that effective change should be cautious, thoughtful, and incremental.

I have never been a fan of the Goldwater mentality. Conservatism is not a badge of courage, it is not uncompromising, and it does not mean anti-progressive. Conservatism in itself is not a defining characteristic of America. Conservatism isn't always right. When conservatism becomes more important than freedom, democracy, equality and understanding, that is the point at which I have to separate from the cult-like mainstream conservatives. In my opinion, when conservatives began to value their ideology more than their principles, that is when the adults left the room and, when the senseless, petty bickering, childish rhetoric, demonizing and name calling began.

So, while you may not share my view of what "conservative" means, I hope you have retained enough of your own mind to at least consider the validity of what conservative means to me and, what it has meant in the past.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Does the President have the moral authority to quote scripture?

Scripture is its own moral authority and the voice of any human quoting it cannot add or subtract from that moral authority.

Scripture itself says we are all flawed or sinners, so who decides at what level of imperfection one has crossed the line of being disqualified from quoting scripture?

Is this analogous to a President overturning Roe-v-Wade?

Not at all. R-v-W is a SCOTUS decision, and according to SCOTUS (which is the final authority for such in our system of government) protects a Constitutional right. No President or Congress can unilaterally override the Constitution or take away our Constitutional rights.

A long history of many similar unchallenged executive orders by many Presidents regarding immigration implies that, unless and until a court rules otherwise, this is not a Constitutional issue or usurpation of Constitution authority on the part of the executive branch. Bringing up Roe-v-Wade is a red herring or a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I have no problem with ANYONE quoting scripture. I would have a problem, based on the 1st Amendment, with anyone--President, Congress, or otherwise--acting on the basis of scripture alone to override the secular political process and/or the Constitution.

For those offended by Obama's remarks, that's fine. Just say "I am offended that the President quoted Scripture". I see no need for outrage, histrionics, or name calling by either side of this debate. Ditto for all who agree or disagree with the President's actual actions on immigration.

Intelligent, thoughtful, rational.

How did you get in here?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

Its just another symptom of the left having mastered situational ethics but posing as a conservative simply isn't working for itchy. The fact is I have never even seen him attempt to defend a conservative belief and by contrast have never seen pass on defending all liberalism. With him, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck springs immediately to mind.

You don't pay attention. You can't. You have this crazy notion that you don't need to. You already know everything. Foolish.

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

Its just another symptom of the left having mastered situational ethics but posing as a conservative simply isn't working for itchy. The fact is I have never even seen him attempt to defend a conservative belief and by contrast have never seen pass on defending all liberalism. With him, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck springs immediately to mind.

You don't pay attention. You can't. You have this crazy notion that you don't need to. You already know everything. Foolish.

Not everything, just more than you and that's the topic in this thread. Got it?

Yes. I that is exactly the point I was trying to make. You posses superior intellect.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

CT, "Pretending" is your opinion. However, I respectfully ask you to consider what conservative really means. IMHO, the roots of conservatism aren't based in ideology as much as they are based in the belief that effective change should be cautious, thoughtful, and incremental.

I have never been a fan of the Goldwater mentality. Conservatism is not a badge of courage, it is not uncompromising, and it does not mean anti-progressive. Conservatism in itself is not a defining characteristic of America. Conservatism isn't always right. When conservatism becomes more important than freedom, democracy, equality and understanding, that is the point at which I have to separate from the cult-like mainstream conservatives. In my opinion, when conservatives began to value their ideology more than their principles, that is when the adults left the room and, when the senseless, petty bickering, childish rhetoric, demonizing and name calling began.

So, while you may not share my view of what "conservative" means, I hope you have retained enough of your own mind to at least consider the validity of what conservative means to me and, what it has meant in the past.

Wrong. Conservatism is totally anti-progressive. if you dont believe that you don't even understand the philosophical divide that separates theses parties. On the one hand you opine that conservatism is an ideology that approaches change with caution, thoughtful and incremental but then everything you defend in your posts supports the sweeping changes the progressives advocate almost always in spite of the constitution.

Sadly, itchy about all you ever post is idealistic naivete. Your lip service to conservative idealism hardly offsets your incessant criticisms of conservatism contrasted by your persistent support of progressivism and its agenda.

I give you concrete examples that illustrate my disdain for the duplicity the left consistently employs in advancing their agenda and all you can do is whine about your beliefs of what James Madison meant when he said partisanship was a good thing. It is a good thing and obviously it bothers you that conservatives simply refuse to lay down and be the lackeys or the yes men for a party with an agenda, to which, their deeply held views quite simply dictates their opposition.

Another oddity that you bring, is your consistent eagerness to assume my commentary is directed specifically at you. You posted a ridiculous question in response to one of my posts that ask.."So anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest." Then 2 or 3 posts later condescendingly order me to post something meaningful then and evidently, only then, will you respond. Hey look, I dont care if you respond or not. So don't respond if that suits you better but, its a waste of your time to pull the lefty stunt of trying to shut me down or you wont respond. .Dont! who cares? How do even come up with this stuff? Here's a newsflash itchy..try NOT to make my posts about YOU because the truth is NONE of them are! Like almost all liberals, you place yourself at the center of the universe and, presumably, only you are fit to judge what is appropriate and what is not.

[quietfan 233]

Does the President have the moral authority to quote scripture?

Scripture is its own moral authority and the voice of any human quoting it cannot add or subtract from that moral authority.

Scripture itself says we are all flawed or sinners, so who decides at what level of imperfection one has crossed the line of being disqualified from quoting scripture?

Is this analogous to a President overturning Roe-v-Wade?

Not at all. R-v-W is a SCOTUS decision, and according to SCOTUS (which is the final authority for such in our system of government) protects a Constitutional right. No President or Congress can unilaterally override the Constitution or take away our Constitutional rights.

A long history of many similar unchallenged executive orders by many Presidents regarding immigration implies that, unless and until a court rules otherwise, this is not a Constitutional issue or usurpation of Constitution authority on the part of the executive branch. Bringing up Roe-v-Wade is a red herring or a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I have no problem with ANYONE quoting scripture. I would have a problem, based on the 1st Amendment, with anyone--President, Congress, or otherwise--acting on the basis of scripture alone to override the secular political process and/or the Constitution.

For those offended by Obama's remarks, that's fine. Just say "I am offended that the President quoted Scripture". I see no need for outrage, histrionics, or name calling by either side of this debate. Ditto for all who agree or disagree with the President's actual actions on immigration.

Intelligent, thoughtful, rational.

How did you get in here?

I sometimes ask myself that question...but more often: WHY did I get in here?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Does the President have the moral authority to quote scripture?

Scripture is its own moral authority and the voice of any human quoting it cannot add or subtract from that moral authority.

Scripture itself says we are all flawed or sinners, so who decides at what level of imperfection one has crossed the line of being disqualified from quoting scripture?

Is this analogous to a President overturning Roe-v-Wade?

Not at all. R-v-W is a SCOTUS decision, and according to SCOTUS (which is the final authority for such in our system of government) protects a Constitutional right. No President or Congress can unilaterally override the Constitution or take away our Constitutional rights.

A long history of many similar unchallenged executive orders by many Presidents regarding immigration implies that, unless and until a court rules otherwise, this is not a Constitutional issue or usurpation of Constitution authority on the part of the executive branch. Bringing up Roe-v-Wade is a red herring or a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I have no problem with ANYONE quoting scripture. I would have a problem, based on the 1st Amendment, with anyone--President, Congress, or otherwise--acting on the basis of scripture alone to override the secular political process and/or the Constitution.

For those offended by Obama's remarks, that's fine. Just say "I am offended that the President quoted Scripture". I see no need for outrage, histrionics, or name calling by either side of this debate. Ditto for all who agree or disagree with the President's actual actions on immigration.

Intelligent, thoughtful, rational.

How did you get in here?

I sometimes ask myself that question...but more often: WHY did I get in here?

The interpersonal conflicts far transcend the hypocrisy of Obama's scripture stunt. They go back a long time over every issue that has come down the pike and neither side has cornered the market on the insulting or condescending retorts

[quietfan 233]

The interpersonal conflicts far transcend the hypocrisy of Obama's scripture stunt. They go back a long time over every issue that has come down the pike and neither side has cornered the market on the insulting or condescending retorts

Truth there!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

CT, "Pretending" is your opinion. However, I respectfully ask you to consider what conservative really means. IMHO, the roots of conservatism aren't based in ideology as much as they are based in the belief that effective change should be cautious, thoughtful, and incremental.

I have never been a fan of the Goldwater mentality. Conservatism is not a badge of courage, it is not uncompromising, and it does not mean anti-progressive. Conservatism in itself is not a defining characteristic of America. Conservatism isn't always right. When conservatism becomes more important than freedom, democracy, equality and understanding, that is the point at which I have to separate from the cult-like mainstream conservatives. In my opinion, when conservatives began to value their ideology more than their principles, that is when the adults left the room and, when the senseless, petty bickering, childish rhetoric, demonizing and name calling began.

So, while you may not share my view of what "conservative" means, I hope you have retained enough of your own mind to at least consider the validity of what conservative means to me and, what it has meant in the past.

Wrong. Conservatism is totally anti-progressive. if you dont believe that you don't even understand the philosophical divide that separates theses parties. On the one hand you opine that conservatism is an ideology that approaches change with caution, thoughtful and incremental but then everything you defend in your posts supports the sweeping changes the progressives advocate almost always in spite of the constitution.

Sadly, itchy about all you ever post is idealistic naivete. Your lip service to conservative idealism hardly offsets your incessant criticisms of conservatism contrasted by your persistent support of progressivism and its agenda.

I give you concrete examples that illustrate my disdain for the duplicity the left consistently employs in advancing their agenda and all you can do is whine about your beliefs of what James Madison meant when he said partisanship was a good thing. It is a good thing and obviously it bothers you that conservatives simply refuse to lay down and be the lackeys or the yes men for a party with an agenda that their deeply held views dictates their opposition.

Another oddity that you bring, is your consistent eagerness to assume my commentary is directed specifically at you. You posted a ridiculous question in response to one of my posts that ask.."So anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest." Then 2 or 3 posts later condescendingly order me to post something meaningful then and evidently, only then, will you respond. Hey look, I dont care if you respond or not. So don't respond if that suits you better but, its a waste of your time to pull the lefty stunt of trying to shut me down or you wont respond. .Dont! who cares? How do even come up with this stuff? Here's a newsflash itchy..try NOT to make my posts about YOU because the truth is NONE of them are! Like almost all liberals, you place yourself at the center of the universe and, presumably, only you are fit to judge what is appropriate and what is not.

You do realize that you post your thoughts as absolute fact (look at your first two sentences) and then, totally dismiss any opposing view without facts, with intense rhetorical criticism, and the obligatory personal attack. Do you not find any irony in that? In my opinion, your posting reflects a very low level of maturity. Suggesting that I am the one with a warped sense of "it's all about me" is pretty ridiculous when you consider the fact that the post you felt obliged to respond to was directed to CT.

Actually, I do not take your posts personally. In fact, I rarely find enough meaningful content to even take them seriously. No offense intended.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Does the President have the moral authority to quote scripture?

Scripture is its own moral authority and the voice of any human quoting it cannot add or subtract from that moral authority.

Scripture itself says we are all flawed or sinners, so who decides at what level of imperfection one has crossed the line of being disqualified from quoting scripture?

Is this analogous to a President overturning Roe-v-Wade?

Not at all. R-v-W is a SCOTUS decision, and according to SCOTUS (which is the final authority for such in our system of government) protects a Constitutional right. No President or Congress can unilaterally override the Constitution or take away our Constitutional rights.

A long history of many similar unchallenged executive orders by many Presidents regarding immigration implies that, unless and until a court rules otherwise, this is not a Constitutional issue or usurpation of Constitution authority on the part of the executive branch. Bringing up Roe-v-Wade is a red herring or a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I have no problem with ANYONE quoting scripture. I would have a problem, based on the 1st Amendment, with anyone--President, Congress, or otherwise--acting on the basis of scripture alone to override the secular political process and/or the Constitution.

For those offended by Obama's remarks, that's fine. Just say "I am offended that the President quoted Scripture". I see no need for outrage, histrionics, or name calling by either side of this debate. Ditto for all who agree or disagree with the President's actual actions on immigration.

Intelligent, thoughtful, rational.

How did you get in here?

I sometimes ask myself that question...but more often: WHY did I get in here?

Too big, too existential question for me but, I appreciate your efforts!

[TheBlueVue 177]

Ichy you like to pretend you are a conservative but that is the last thing you are. You like to pretend you are this high minded independent thinker above the partisanship that you claim to hate. Only one problem with that is you always come to the aid of the liberals against conservatives. I said it before and I'll say it again. People like Homer and Tex are liberals to the core and I disagree with them profoundly but at least they have the courage of their beliefs and don't try to hide and pretend they are something they aren't.

CT, "Pretending" is your opinion. However, I respectfully ask you to consider what conservative really means. IMHO, the roots of conservatism aren't based in ideology as much as they are based in the belief that effective change should be cautious, thoughtful, and incremental.

I have never been a fan of the Goldwater mentality. Conservatism is not a badge of courage, it is not uncompromising, and it does not mean anti-progressive. Conservatism in itself is not a defining characteristic of America. Conservatism isn't always right. When conservatism becomes more important than freedom, democracy, equality and understanding, that is the point at which I have to separate from the cult-like mainstream conservatives. In my opinion, when conservatives began to value their ideology more than their principles, that is when the adults left the room and, when the senseless, petty bickering, childish rhetoric, demonizing and name calling began.

So, while you may not share my view of what "conservative" means, I hope you have retained enough of your own mind to at least consider the validity of what conservative means to me and, what it has meant in the past.

Wrong. Conservatism is totally anti-progressive. if you dont believe that you don't even understand the philosophical divide that separates theses parties. On the one hand you opine that conservatism is an ideology that approaches change with caution, thoughtful and incremental but then everything you defend in your posts supports the sweeping changes the progressives advocate almost always in spite of the constitution.

Sadly, itchy about all you ever post is idealistic naivete. Your lip service to conservative idealism hardly offsets your incessant criticisms of conservatism contrasted by your persistent support of progressivism and its agenda.

I give you concrete examples that illustrate my disdain for the duplicity the left consistently employs in advancing their agenda and all you can do is whine about your beliefs of what James Madison meant when he said partisanship was a good thing. It is a good thing and obviously it bothers you that conservatives simply refuse to lay down and be the lackeys or the yes men for a party with an agenda that their deeply held views dictates their opposition.

Another oddity that you bring, is your consistent eagerness to assume my commentary is directed specifically at you. You posted a ridiculous question in response to one of my posts that ask.."So anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest." Then 2 or 3 posts later condescendingly order me to post something meaningful then and evidently, only then, will you respond. Hey look, I dont care if you respond or not. So don't respond if that suits you better but, its a waste of your time to pull the lefty stunt of trying to shut me down or you wont respond. .Dont! who cares? How do even come up with this stuff? Here's a newsflash itchy..try NOT to make my posts about YOU because the truth is NONE of them are! Like almost all liberals, you place yourself at the center of the universe and, presumably, only you are fit to judge what is appropriate and what is not.

You do realize that you post your thoughts as absolute fact (look at your first two sentences) and then, totally dismiss any opposing view without facts, with intense rhetorical criticism, and the obligatory personal attack. Do you not find any irony in that? In my opinion, your posting reflects a very low level of maturity. Suggesting that I am the one with a warped sense of "it's all about me" is pretty ridiculous when you consider the fact that the post you felt obliged to respond to was directed to CT.

Actually, I do not take your posts personally. In fact, I rarely find enough meaningful content to even take them seriously. No offense intended.

I guess its all in how you prefer to look at it. I'd say its a matter of interpretation so no, I see no obvious irony that you claim to have sniffed out. I post my opinions w/o equivocation. They bother you deeply so you proceed, with palpable emotion, to post the first thing that comes to mind and more times than not its just idealistic leftist drivel

You can say one thing, like you don't take my posts personally, but then quite routinely ask rather silly questions that undeniably infer that Im posting about you. That having been noted, your denials simply fall flat but, I will give you a C- for effort.