I don't have 30 years to wait before it gets thrown out. I mean the ACLU gave up on that one years ago.
WWBB09D? I think we should link this to the hangout after the speech to show some of the serious pwnage that took place here... This thread needs more photoshopping.
This thread really is the gift that keeps on giving. As a proud baylor alum, and a black mother of 2, I can say without a doubt that I have been thoroughly entertained.
Really? That's weird. I thought he sounded like a small, biased fool who was looking as hard as he could for something to criticize and pretty much came up empty handed. He seems way too petty (and WAY too partisan) to be any good with spiritual leadership.
Maybe I'm weird, but I'd walk out of a church if the pastor talked about freaking politics even if I agreed. Too much of a slippery slope. KIRS
I've never seen you around CF before Red Chocolate and I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it.
I believe he lacks the balls (maybe he is a she) to show his face anymore. It is truly sad that he had to resort to lying about his gender/race to gain sympathy towards his point of view... Although if you look back, none of us really cared about his claims anyways. FINKLE IS BAYLORBEAR09, BAYLORBEAR09 IS FINKLE!! SAY HELLO TO CAPTAIN WINKIE!!!
It doesn't take 30 years. Perhaps the ACLU gave up because they realized the legal arguments weren't there. What specific part of the Constitution is being violated? By which section of the Patriot Act?
I find it amusing when avowed Libertarians complain about anyone being a corporate shill. You don't really understand what you profess to believe in, do you?
This whole thing is nothing. You want an uproar, just think if I was president and I wanted to give a speech to school children (I would mention Jesus no less than 10 times )
He may very well be a small, biased fool, but I think the issues he brings up are valid for discussion. As apolitical as the Obama team may have intended his speech to be, there are apparently implicit political assumptions in it which may be challenged by conservatives who preach small, hands-off federal government. The remark that Obama should be celebrating the fairness and freedom that allowed him to become president, however, was pretty shallow in my opinion.
It is. Obama didn't say we wanted a free and fair country. But a MORE free and fair country. Meaning he acknowledges the country's freedom and the fairness that allowed him to become president. But we can't stop there.
He raised three issues, which you called "very reasonable." Let's break them down: You called this one "pretty shallow" above. I think it's fair to say that "pretty shallow" and "very reasonable" are mutually exclusive characterizations. This is obviously a response to trying to increase the total dollars to public schools. The lowest fool would not mistake this for Obama inserting himself in state-level budgeting. And here his complaint is that Obama "expects" best efforts instead of "encouraging" them -- the pettiest of semantic distinctions. What, exactly, did you find "very reasonable" in any of this?
