Who's supports this or that rhetoric is really not very important. Yet, we get bogged down in it. What really is being done to slow or stop abortions and who really is doing anything seriously about stopping terror attacks. Here's some comment about the latter and our elected leadership's facile attitude toward it.
"The august members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, having convened a hearing to consider what America needs in protection over the next five years, barely gave New York City's top terror expert five minutes of their time yesterday. Ho-hum, he was only talking about the lives and safety of millions."
"So rather than worrying about whether it was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton � along with their respective wise men and flunkies � who are more to blame for 9/11, it would behoove us all to think about the next catastrophe waiting down the road. Now is exactly the time to start imagining it."
I read the second article with interest, but can you imagine with all the flack that Pres. George Bush is getting from the Democrats over Iraq, they've tied his hands so that he wouldn't be able to respond to anything.
There is another problem though. Iran knows her strength, and it is the Gulf. She controls it, and can stop all the oil shipments from leaving.
Well all the 'Hate America' enemies are meeting in Cuba, guests of Castro. I wonder what they're cooking up? And what can we do about it when certain politicians are keeping this nation in a state of disunity for their own gains.
What a mess? Our enemies know our weaknesses and are using it against us. Frankly I don't know what their gain is other than the destruction of America. It seems hatred...or should I say envy has no bounds. :rolleyes:
The primary aim of every politician is to get reelected. Usually this means avoiding controversy.
Politicans will act in the public good if the people put enough pressure on them. Without it, they listen to the lobbyists.
We need term limits - especially in the Senate. There are dinosaurs of both parties who needed to go a long time ago. We would all be better off if blabblermouths like Democrats Kennedy and Kerry and Republicans Ted Stevens and John McCain were long gone - and that's to mention a few.
I definitely believe that we need term limits for the Senate and the House. 2 terms for the Senate and 5 for the House. I don't think that anyone deserves to screw up the country for more than a decade. The system is way too corrupt.
I've become so jaded by the whole process I don't know if I'll vote for anyone.
I wanted to vote for Keyes in the last election but he has the disadvantages of being too black, too Catholic, and sounding too much like Kermit the Frog!
Originally posted by Dr. Eric: I definitely believe that we need term limits for the Senate and the House. 2 terms for the Senate and 5 for the House. I don't think that anyone deserves to screw up the country for more than a decade. The system is way too corrupt.
I've become so jaded by the whole process I don't know if I'll vote for anyone.
I wanted to vote for Keyes in the last election but he has the disadvantages of being too black, too Catholic, and sounding too much like Kermit the Frog!
I think term limits for Congress is a good idea. The problem is that it has to apply across the board. Several years ago-in fact, it was when Tom Foley was still Speaker of the House-certain states imposed term limits on their US Senators and Representatives. It was challenged and struck down, because the Supreme Court ruled that an individual state cannot set requirements for who does and who does not qualify for the US Congress. So what we need is a Constitutional amendment. That will not come easily, because I can't imagine a super-majority of both houses approving such and amendment. However, there is a second method, which has never been used, provided by the Constitution. If at least 2/3 of the states petitions Congress for a national convention, the Congress is required to convene such a convention. Any amendment proposed by the convention would require ratification by 3/4 of the states, just as the process which has always been used requires. So if we are to have Congressional term limits, it will truly have to come about because of the overwhelming determination of the people.
I wanted to vote for Keyes in the last election but he has the disadvantages of being too black, too Catholic, and sounding too much like Kermit the Frog!
I say:
I'm so glad someone else loves Keyes. I consider him the brightest man in the country. Now I don't know about him being too black, too Catholic, and frankly I don't know what Kermit the Frog sounds like but as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have a chance because he's too Christian.
It doesn't matter though, I like George Bush. He's managed to keep us from falling into a depression even considering he inherited a recession from Pres. Clinton, the economic catastrophy we had of 911, and the many natural disasters we've had.
He also stopped funding from this country going through the U.N. to pay for abortions in other nations. He's managed to put more Christian and conservative judges on the bench, after years of only liberal one's. (Oh my gosh, we don't want to go back to having more of them).
I meant that he's too black and too Catholic to be elected. There are still too many prejudices in America yet.
He's got an uphill battle as far as being black and even worse as this is a 70% Protestant country, he's Catholic. As Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said, and I'm paraphrasing, "If you had a gathering of Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other Protestants; the one topic with which they'd agree with in a lecture or sermon is an Anti-Catholic topic."
As far as Kermit the Frog goes, I think he really does sound like Kermit the Frog:
I hate to say it given that he is such a contrast to most in the public eye today and such a contrast with all of the presidential candidates of the last 14 years Keyes is too smart, compassionate, and reasonable to be elected.
Originally posted by Brian: Keyes may be many things but I would not say he was compassionate exemplified in his treatment of his own daughter.
I suppose I'm walking right into it but I don't know your reference. Could you elaborate. Did he kill her? Did he beat her up? Or did he simply disagree with her?
I did some google searching and quickly found what I believe Brian is on about. The meanness, if there is any, comes not from Keyes but from his daughter.
No, he did not disown her. When he was pressed for an answer to his reaction to her "coming out" in such a way as to try to embarrass him or the mock the Catholic Church he simply observed that as a Catholic he knew that Lesbian practice was a sin. No big deal except that he was honest. Her public behavior may be considered shameful and guilt worthy but not his.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights
reserved.
