Bush supporter thread closed? Is this a mistake?

[sodascouts]

Hello, I wasn't done replying and I resent that that thread was closed. It wasn't any worse than others I've seen, like the "Race for the White House thread."

[GardenStateGirlie]

The thread starter appears to have closed it.

[David]

The thread starter appears to have closed it.I was just about to hit the QUOTE button to respond to Nancy. Now I'll just have to keep it to myself!

So . . . anybody read any good books lately?

[estranged4life]

So . . . anybody read any good books lately?

Anne Rice's "Blood Canticle"

Brian "Enlightened" j.

[dissention]

The thread starter appears to have closed it.

Can they do that? I thought that Marty disabled all the functions except for the one that allows you to delete your own post.

[gldstwmn]

I was just about to hit the QUOTE button to respond to Nancy. Now I'll just have to keep it to myself!

So . . . anybody read any good books lately?

I just started George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops (banned by WalMart) and Il Dottore by Ron Felber.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Can they do that? I thought that Marty disabled all the functions except for the one that allows you to delete your own post.

I believe you can, yes. If not, ya can now! :laugh:

[dissention]

I just started George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops (banned by WalMart) and Il Dottore by Ron Felber.

Wal Mart bans everything. :laugh:

Have you picked up America: The Book? I almost choked when I saw the nude Supreme Court Justices. And the chapter on the media is priceless. "Geraldo Rivera...is an asshole." :lol:

[estranged4life]

Can they do that? I thought that Marty disabled all the functions except for the one that allows you to delete your own post.

the starter of a thread can still lock the thread...

Oh well...

Brian j.

[HomerMcvie]

Say it ain't so, oh Lily Rose. We can't continue the conversation when you're done? (I know, I was only lurking. Some of you scare me with your political anger) :nod:

[dissention]

I believe you can, yes. If not, ya can now! :laugh:

:laugh:

Did you go to PBS to watch any of that that Frontline I told you about? I went to find the link but got caught up when I found another special about religion and politics. Freaked me out big time.

[dissention]

the starter of a thread can still lock the thread...

Oh well...

Brian j.

Well, pardon me, but that's utter ****.

[sodascouts]

Let me just add here, since the other thread is closed, that I respect the rights of non-Bush supporters to hold their opinions. I only wish the best for them and this country which they are as much a part of as I am.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Let me just add here, since the other thread is closed, that I respect the rights of non-Bush supporters to hold their opinions. I only with the best for them and this country which they are as much a part of as I am.

Agreed. :wavey:

[GardenStateGirlie]

:laugh:

Did you go to PBS to watch any of that that Frontline I told you about? I went to find the link but got caught up when I found another special about religion and politics. Freaked me out big time.

I'm getting a new computer for Christmas (THANK GOD) because the one i have isn't even mine and I need to give it back. I'm lucky it runs. There are no programs on it and it doesn't even have room for me to install my printer software to print anything. So nope, no watching anything for me. The only time i'm really on here is when i'm at work (now) and there aren't any speakers on the computers unless you're in the main office.

[HomerMcvie]

Well, pardon me, but that's utter ****.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Well said!

[estranged4life]

"Geraldo Rivera...is an asshole." :lol:

that reminds me of a Conan O'Brien scit that had Geraldo on it accepting an award for his coverage of the "War on Terror" in which he gave out the location of the US troops...Below is the award he won:

American
Super
Soldier
Honorary
Order of
Loyal
E....

Brian "Conan...I am in a War zone...Whiz...Bang...Pow!" j.

[stargazer99]

I was just about to hit the QUOTE button to respond to Nancy. Now I'll just have to keep it to myself!

Same thing happened to me!

So . . . anybody read any good books lately?


Would it be totally politically incorrect at this point for me to answer "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where's My Country"? :laugh:

- Mary

[gldstwmn]

Wal Mart bans everything. :laugh:

Have you picked up America: The Book? I almost choked when I saw the nude Supreme Court Justices. And the chapter on the media is priceless. "Geraldo Rivera...is an asshole." :lol:


I'll have to check it out. :)

[GateandGarden]

I'll have to check it out. :) :nod: I haven't gone through all of it yet but what I've read is hilarious. I love the foreword by Thomas Jefferson and the section advertising other books by "The Daily Show." ;) :laugh:

Hillary

[GardenStateGirlie]

Wal Mart bans everything. :laugh:

Have you picked up America: The Book? I almost choked when I saw the nude Supreme Court Justices. And the chapter on the media is priceless. "Geraldo Rivera...is an asshole." :lol:

I want to read it. He gained my respect when he called bow-tie a dick (sorry, Ali but i hate CNN).

[estranged4life]

Wal Mart bans everything. :laugh:



with Wal-Mart:

<img src="http://mindscraps.com/s/cwm/3dlil/puke.gif"> <img src="http://www.walmart.com/i/if/logo_always.gif">

<img src="http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/cwm/cwm/piss2.gif"> <img src="http://www.walmart.com/i/if/logo_always.gif"> <img src="http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/cwm/cwm/piss.gif">

Brian "F*ck Wal-Mart" j.

[strandinthewind]

I was just about to hit the QUOTE button to respond to Nancy. Now I'll just have to keep it to myself!

So . . . anybody read any good books lately?

I already had mine typed out and Nancy started this thread, so here it is

Again, with as much respect as I have for Nancy, here is why I think she is wrong, or at least too willing to accept the current R agenda.

I think W and the R party are trying to create a theocracy and here is how I support that:

1. They want to use public funds to place Christian (and they only fight for th Christian ones mind you) symbols in public places. They do not mind and in fact want to turn public buildings into places of worship.

2. They want everyone to live by Christian ideals. For example, no sex (hetero or homo sexual) out of wedlock.

3. They want to use public funds to use in Christian schools and for Christian Charities. I seriously doubt if the Wiccans applied for these same funds, they would get them.

4. I see the day to day activity of many Christians and they are exclusive. I cannot tell you how many people I heard, bumperstickers I read, etc. all saying something to the effect of W will make America safe for Jesus again. I fully realize this is not all Christians, but I submit it is over 50%.

My comment about the church coffers and abortion was born from my experience with churches here and things like the 700 club. Like it or not, they represent the majority of Christians. And - they preach this to fill their coffers. As an example, Pat Robertson routinely begs for money while preaching against abortion - in fact, he has had telethons on the subject. So, that is how arrived at, not jumped to as you asserted, that conclusion. If you can prove me wrong, I am all ears.

You said in reference to my example of why partial birth abortion should remain legal "This extremely rare situation is offered up again and again. How do you know such exceptions won't also be exceptions on a ban? And not all people against this are religious zealots, a mischaracterization you keep coming back to." I am actually unsure I understood what you said, but I do know the current bill does ban this situation and that is, inter alia (been studying your Latin :cool: :wavey: ) , why it has been ruled Uncontitutional.

You said "I don't blame Bush for terrorists. They make their own choices. The 9/11 argument is completely fallacious - it would have happened regardless of who was President. Remember that Clinton also didn't recognize warning signs. It's unfair to lay that on Bush. And to my knowledge Bush never actually said that Sadaam Hussein had foreknowledge of 911. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Clinton caught and prosecuted via the legal system of the U.S. the people that first bombed the WTC. Clinton also caught and prosecuted other terrorists and a Y2K LAX bombing plot was prevented. So, his record was pretty good :shrug: THEN - when Clinton left office, his people flat out told W's administration that Al-Q, not Iraq, was the threat. They warned W - but he refused to listen. I am not making this up - this is a fact documented by several people extremely high up in W's administration. They ALL say W was preoccupied by Iraq and did not really want to hear too much about Al-Q despite the outgoing Clinton Admin.'s warnings. So, I am a little amazed at how easily people forgive W for that, esp. since in August 2001, the threats grew severer and W still ignored them and was preoccupied with Iraq. I fully grant you that had W concentrated on Al-Q instead of Iraq, 9/11 probably could not have been prevent without a little luck. But, it terrifies me that W did not learn from his mistake. He was in hot pursuit of OBL and what does he do, he invades Iraq, where he is now again preoccupied.

True - W never said "Sadaam Hussein had foreknowledge of 911" - but what he did do was say SH could give nuclear materials or other WMD, which W knew SH did not have but lied about anyway (again he and/or his administration said they KNEW where they were), to terrorist groups like Al-Q - thus linking the two. In reality, W knew SH and AL-Q had extrememly vague past ties and clearly had no working relationship - in fact, they really did not like each other at all. Yet, he melded the two together. AND - Cheney certainly said AL-Q and SH were linked - in fact he is still saying it despite it having been resoundingly disproved. That is where I got that.

Next, in about ten speeches Bush said the proceeds from the Iraqi oil would pay for the war.

In response to my saying "I will never understand how Christians can support this. The Decalogue says 'Thou shall not kill.' "

You said "Actually, the literal translation is 'Thou shalt not murder'"

I think it depends on which version you are quoting from :shrug:

You said "Has Bush made any laws concerning sodomy?"

No, but do you knoestly think he would hesitate to if he could. After all, he never ordered Texas to stop the proscution of the Lawrence case did he :shrug: If he felt so strongly that sodomy was okay, why did he do that?

And yes, Kerry was against gay marriage, but he also voted against the DOMA and verbally opposed the Const. ban on gay marriage, calling it tool of hate or something like that.

So, if you are trying to argue that W and Kerry are the same on gay rights, I submit you cannot win that argument.

You said "I don't believe Bush has suggested any laws requiring people to be Christians or believe in God." Well, putting the TC in a courthouse and saying this is the law and the first one saying I am the Lord thy God you shall have no other gods before me (paraphrase) come pretty close don't you think. I mean that is saying the Christian God is the law :shrug: And - I realize W did not do that, but supported the Alabama jusde who did this horrible act.

Again, with respect I say this.

[amber]

wow, amazing, someone stopped bitching about people being able to close their own thread, and actually realized they could continue the conversation within another thread! Or could've even started their own! Wow, great job...

[GateandGarden]

Great post Jason! :)

Hillary

[strandinthewind]

And you know what is interesting to me as well is that take someone like Nancy (Sodascouts) who I know personally and consider a formidable intellect and call a friend - we are the same in our concern for the hijacking of religion. I am just coming at it from a different angle than she is. Having said that and lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am all for religion and think it is a good thing. I think it is the people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (sorry Dissension) and, to a severer length, OBL who give it a bad name. They are the bad people, not IMO the religion itself.

Anyway, there's my $0.02

[greatdarkwing]

OK guys....lots of arguments and discussions lately....So, I decided to lay my cards down, let everyone see them and you guys can just dig in (as I expect everyone to).

But before i start, please everyone, lets remember to not take these things personal. I RESPECTFULLY disagree with things many of you have had to say: Johnnystew, dissention, strandinthewind, gldstwmn. But what makes it so great, is that at the end of the day, I respect these people(and more I havent listed) because they have VALID opinions they can back up. I have no problems with political discussions as long as they dont get personal. I have been able to maintain wonderful relationships with the above in other forums. I just happen to disagree with them politically. In fact, I have met some of them and they are AMAZING people. So, I just ask that we remember not to take these things personally. At the end of the day, we have to live with each other. Through thich and thin ,left or right :laugh:

With that being said, I will go into extreme detil as to why I vote Republican and the few things I trust the Democrats with...

First we'll start with what I agree with the Democratic party:

The Environment: I live in Miami as most of you know, and I am a big believer in defending the environment. I happen to be a big fan of the ocean. I go snorkelling, fishing, and i hope to get my diving certification soon. I love sharks, and I have a feeling that unless we start MASSIVE conservation now, they'll be gone soon. Unfortunately, this is not one of the Republicans top priorities which is a shame. I also live 5 minutes from The Everglades...a beautiful swamp land filled with birds, alligators, etc...Over the past few years, I have contributed LOTS of my own personal money to wonderful environmental organizations that protecT the Everglades and the coral reefs.

Thats about it! LOL!

Now what everyone has all been waiting for:

Terrorism: Now alot of you claim "we had no reason to be in Iraq because there were no WMD's" As sane people do you really think Saddam, a man who clearly had WMD's before, would wake up and decide not to have them? The man is clearly dellusional. Pick up a psychology book and look it up. Even after he was captured the idiot was still calling himself the king of Iraq! If thats not legally crazy, I dont know what is. But my point in this is.....PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE. Pedifiles don't just wake up one morning and think : "Im not going to be a pedifile today or ever". Same thing with murderers and people like Saddam. Im sure everyone who says about the WMD's pretty much knows deep down inside Saddam hid them somewhere, and if you dont prove to me this crazy idiot changed his way of being from 1998 until now. You cant! He was still putting people in mass graves, still torturing civilians. This man has not changed and Im willing to bet my soul he had them and hid them.

Point is....if Saddam had WMD's he could have sold them to people who were going to use them. THATS WHY HE WAS A THREAT. the chances of him HIMSELF using them were slim to none. But he could've sold them to others. Hell, this man paid money to the families of homicide bombers in the Israel/Palestine region! Thats what makes Saddam part of the war on terror. By TEXTBOOK definition Saddam Hussein was a threat to the well being of this country whether directly or indirectly. PERIOD. Mock the war all you want, but it is clear if Saddam had gotten anything, it would have been on its way here or to other parts of the world. Maybe if the French weren't SO DEEP into Saddam's pocket, then they would have suppoorted the war. And lets not forget the UN who CLEARLY KNEW Saddam was raiding the oil for food program money for his own personal use. Money meant for the Iraqi people going to buy a 24 karat gold toilet seat for presidential palace #7 for Saddam Hussein....and you guys are willing to tell me he should have stayed? Please.

Now you guys will come back and say "Well, Alex, wasnt Iran or N. Korea more important than Iraq?" Depends. These countries are pushed up against the wall diplomatically. Hell, they can barey fart without us noticing. The problem is Saddam was the biggest "under the sheets" threat. (if that makes no sense, just respond i'll go more into detail)

Abortion, religious issues, gay rights, etc: I do not consider myself the best Cathollic of life. Hell, I never go to church, Do I agree with the church sometimes? Yes. Do I disagree witht he church sometime? yes. Abortion seems to be where I agree most. I think its wrong. Thats just my own view on it. Gay rights is where I get more liberal. I think privacy is very important. What happens at home stays at home. So, I have little problems with gay rights. I even think civil unions should be alllowed, and recognized by the state. Now, i do disagree with marriage. I feel religion is almost like joining a country club. Theres rules to join and rules to follow in both. If the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then theres really nothing you can really do. But I disagree with the states defining marriage. That should be seperation of church and state. Now I know there are MANY gay ledgies, and i respect them 100% as people and my friends, and I hope I did not offend anyone. Like I said, this is my own personal opinion and I hope I do not lose any Ledgie support.

Cuba: I've gone through this many times before. As a Cuban I just can not vote Democrat (Even though the Repubs have not done anything either). This is my strongest personal issue. My great grandfather was killed by the hands of the Castro regime, and I've said many times that I would in a heartbeat sacrifice my own life to have that evil man wiped off the face of the earth. I still have large amounts of family there and in pains me they are 90 miles away from me in a virtual prison.

Those are just some of my own PERSONAL views. I hope I do not come under personal attacks. I respect any disagreements you may have on what I ha typed! Thanks for taking the time to listen....

~Alex

[Hawkeye]

It's closed but I just have to respond to this Dissention quote from the other thread:

When you support a man like Bush, you will reap what you sow. And it won't be pretty. I hope they do suffer from his re-taking the throne, only then will their eyes open up. And that will only mean good things for this country.

Now that's just wrong. How about you hope Bush doesn an AMAZING job in his second term and he has a catharthis and is greatful that he actually won this election. I realize that's not very like;ly but why can't we HOPE for that, instead of HOPIJNG for things to get worse so people realize their mistake. Why not HOPE Bush does a great job.

[strandinthewind]

Alex - I respect your opinion and even agree with you to some extent about SH. But, even if you justify the invasion of Iraq, how can you advocate the mess W created by not adequately arming our troops, not sending (according to his generals) enough troops, his not having a plan to win the peace, his letting 400 or so tons of explosives disappear into thin air, and his not having a plan to win the peace. I think those are HUGE issues and W has no valid answer for them other than the stock "Iraq is free of a vicious dictator" usually coupled with "Iraq is a success and Democracy is speading thoughout it" - the latter of which is a flat out lie.

Again, I get why W wanted to go into Iraq, but he sure has made a mess of it since :shrug:

[greatdarkwing]

Alex - I respect your opinion and even agree with you to some extent about SH. But, even if you justify the invasion of Iraq, how can you advocate the mess W created by not adequately arming our troops, not sending (according to his generals) enough troops, his not having a plan to win the peace, his letting 400 or so tons of explosives disappear into thin air, and his not having a plan to win the peace. I think those are HUGE issues and W has no valid answer for them other than the stock "Iraq is free of a vicious dictator" usually coupled with "Iraq is a success and Democracy is speading thoughout it" - the latter of which is a flat out lie.

Again, I get why W wanted to go into Iraq, but he sure has made a mess of it since :shrug:

Frankly I do think SINCE the war started there were problems. I think part of it had to do with the fact that there SHOULD have been more air campaigns. The rough ride into Baghdad should have been an indication of things to come. But at the end of the day I think it was justified. Is it getting ugly? Yes. Is there a way out? Soon, even the President knows we cant be there forever.

~Alex

BTW, Thanks for the your comments. I appreciate it, Jason :)

[strandinthewind]

Now that's just wrong. How about you hope Bush doesn an AMAZING job in his second term and he has a catharthis and is greatful that he actually won this election. I realize that's not very like;ly but why can't we HOPE for that, instead of HOPIJNG for things to get worse so people realize their mistake. Why not HOPE Bush does a great job.

Speaking for myself - I had that hope when he took office. I sincerely thought he meant what he said. After four years of realizing the horrible mistake I made in trusting him and his cronies, I am loathe to trust him again.

I mean I believed him when he said he would never go to war unless America was in direct and immediate danger of attack, but I know know that he knew damn well that Iraq was no such thing and was hell bent on going there anyway and now 1,000's of U.S. soldiers are dead.

I believed him when he said gay people have the right to coexist - then he comes out with the Const. ban of not only gay marriage but any form of civil unions because gay people are "sinners."

I believed him when he said the tax cuts would work and he would curtail Federal spending (they must go habd in hand). Now he has outspent on borrowed money any Democrat ever in the history of Democrats.

and the list goes on and on with things like healthcare, the environment, etc.

So, I, and I imagine others, are once bitten twice shy.

But, you are correct - I wish he would do the right thing and forget about his agenda of theocratic conservatism and realize his former policies have failed :cool:

[GardenStateGirlie]

....how can you advocate the mess W created by not adequately arming our troops

If i'm not mistaken, did John Kerry and others vote NAY on arming the troops? $87 billion...no?

[strandinthewind]

If i'm not mistaken, did John Kerry and others vote NAY on arming the troops? $87 billion...no?

You are mistaken (but I love ya anyway!!! :cool: ) That bill was an omnibus spending bill that encompassed many other things and W lied about what the money was going for. Essentially W wanted a blank check for Halliburton. Sadly, he got it.

Here is a website that explains it:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269

What I am talking about was W knew prior to the invasion that the armed forces did not have enough supplies. He could have waited until they got them. But, he chose not to. Thus, my argument.

[strandinthewind]

I have always said Barney is the best thing about W :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/presidential.pooch.ap/index.html

[greatdarkwing]

I have always said Barney is the best thing about W :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/presidential.pooch.ap/index.html

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!

BTW, HAPPY B-DAY to a wonderful first lady, Laura Bush :woohoo: (C'mon, lets at least give the first lady some love)

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!

BTW, HAPPY B-DAY to a wonderful first lady, Laura Bush :woohoo: (C'mon, lets at least give the first lady some love)

~Alex

I like Laura and wish her HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!

Now - knock some sense into that hubby of your's :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

Gay rights is where I get more liberal. I think privacy is very important. What happens at home stays at home. So, I have little problems with gay rights. I even think civil unions should be alllowed, and recognized by the state. Now, i do disagree with marriage. I feel religion is almost like joining a country club. Theres rules to join and rules to follow in both. If the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then theres really nothing you can really do. But I disagree with the states defining marriage. That should be seperation of church and state. Now I know there are MANY gay ledgies, and i respect them 100% as people and my friends, and I hope I did not offend anyone. Like I said, this is my own personal opinion and I hope I do not lose any Ledgie support.
~AlexI'm not sure I understand. It seems as though you've said it's okay with you for there to be gay marriage as long as churches are not required by law to acknowledge those marriages. Is that what you were saying? :shrug:

Hillary

[estranged4life]

Now - knock some sense into that hubby of your's :laugh:

those chances are the same as Stevie Nicks leading a chiffon cladded brigade of tambourine terrorists into Tokyo for some Saki :laugh:

Brian j.

[greatdarkwing]

I'm not sure I understand. It seems as though you've said it's okay with you for there to be gay marriage as long as churches are not required by law to acknowledge those marriages. Is that what you were saying? :shrug:

Hillary

No, Im getting at a difference between those recognized by the state and those by the church. Make sense now?

~Alex

[ontheEdgeof17]

those chances are the same as Stevie Nicks leading a chiffon cladded brigade of tambourine terrorists into Tokyo for some Saki :laugh:

Brian j.


That could have been possible....in 1986 :laugh:

[dissention]

If i'm not mistaken, did John Kerry and others vote NAY on arming the troops? $87 billion...no?

Once again, your facts are wrong. Go look at the bill Kerry supported, then the one the Republicans pushed through and expected him to support. They were radically different. Maybe your frustration should be vented on Bush, who sent them in wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets and then cut their pay once they were over there.

[greatdarkwing]

those chances are the same as Stevie Nicks leading a chiffon cladded brigade of tambourine terrorists into Tokyo for some Saki :laugh:

Brian j.

THE VISUAL IS SCARY! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

[dissention]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!

BTW, HAPPY B-DAY to a wonderful first lady, Laura Bush :woohoo: (C'mon, lets at least give the first lady some love)

~Alex

Yeah, hopefully she won't run me over in her car if I do. :woohoo:

[GateandGarden]

No, Im getting at a difference between those recognized by the state and those by the church. Make sense now?

~AlexI thought that was what I asked? :confused:

Hillary

[greatdarkwing]

Yeah, hopefully she won't run me over in her car if I do. :woohoo:

Now, now, Ledgies of the corn, lets play nice :laugh:

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

I thought that was what I asked? :confused:

Hillary

My point: If the church doesnt want to they shouldnt have to. Do I disagree? A bit...Im on the fence.

~Alex

[jadegypsy]

Not sure if the conversation is really continuing with the W thing, but anyways...

I did vote for Kerry, mind you I don't like Kerry, what I like is the stance on issues, and that I would perfer to live under the Supreme Court Justices he would've appointed.

Abortion: I probably would never have one, but it is no ones right, least of all the state to say if I or anybody else can have one. There are way to many orphans in this world already...Partial Birth abortion: the rare case, well if that rare case was you, your best friend etc how would you feel, exceptions must be made. Oh and banning abortion, it will still be done, it was in my mothers time, it will just be more of a health risk.

Environment: I like the Artic refugee, I like clean air/water...Therefore I don't like W.

Stem Cell Research: I support this, and before everyone jumps, million of extra fertility embryos get tossed every month...new embryos would not be created for this, just the use of ones that are already targeted for destruction...

Terrorism: It will happen...It doesn't matter who the president is...Does everyone convienetly forget we were attacked when W was in office? If we really want to end terrorism the country needs to wean itself off oil and bankrupt the economys over there, the US is financing it's own war by it's oil consumption...

Gay marriage: It doesn't effect me in daily life, it's a civil right and saying gay ppl can't get married/civil union is no better then saying "african americans" can't get married, it's just another form of descrimination: Sexual descrimination. For all those that are against gay marriage can you really and honestly tell me your daily life would be affected by gay ppl getting married?

Religious displays: Seperation of Church and State. That simple, I went through a period of really despising the religious undertones in certain things...now I just selectivly ignore...I won't stand for the public prayers etc...I would hate to have my tax money go to support certain religious groups, this country was founded on freedom of religion, freedom to support or not, if I want to give money to a group I can choose to do that, but when I give money to the government it is to be spent on the government projects, not selective religious ones...

Economy: I'm sorry but any president that can turn a surplus into a deficit during a war must be really incompetent. Historically wars are good for the economy( WWI, WWII...).

[GateandGarden]

My point: If the church doesnt want to they shouldnt have to. Do I disagree? A bit...Im on the fence.

~AlexOh, well I didn't think anyone was saying that the churches should have to recognize gay marriages. Some will and some won't. I didn't think anyone was arguing that the government should force the churches to do that--that is a violation of separation of church and state, isn't it? But gays could get married at city hall and such. :shrug:

Hillary

[estranged4life]

Yeah, hopefully she won't run me over in her car if I do. :woohoo:

Mrs.Shrub doesnt come driving along & into my back porch :laugh:...Won't get repaired until this weekend, Thanks to the "Backwood yokel 'tard" neighbor & his "illegally" parked Semi.

I pray that the bird of paradise flies up his damned nose and takes root.

Brian "Idiots...I see Idiots everywhere...Oh wait, I live in Oklahoma, That explains alot" j.

[dissention]

Terrorism: Now alot of you claim "we had no reason to be in Iraq because there were no WMD's" As sane people do you really think Saddam, a man who clearly had WMD's before, would wake up and decide not to have them? The man is clearly dellusional. Pick up a psychology book and look it up. Even after he was captured the idiot was still calling himself the king of Iraq! If thats not legally crazy, I dont know what is. But my point in this is.....PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE. Pedifiles don't just wake up one morning and think : "Im not going to be a pedifile today or ever". Same thing with murderers and people like Saddam. Im sure everyone who says about the WMD's pretty much knows deep down inside Saddam hid them somewhere, and if you dont prove to me this crazy idiot changed his way of being from 1998 until now. You cant! He was still putting people in mass graves, still torturing civilians. This man has not changed and Im willing to bet my soul he had them and hid them.

Point is....if Saddam had WMD's he could have sold them to people who were going to use them. THATS WHY HE WAS A THREAT. the chances of him HIMSELF using them were slim to none. But he could've sold them to others. Hell, this man paid money to the families of homicide bombers in the Israel/Palestine region! Thats what makes Saddam part of the war on terror. By TEXTBOOK definition Saddam Hussein was a threat to the well being of this country whether directly or indirectly. PERIOD. Mock the war all you want, but it is clear if Saddam had gotten anything, it would have been on its way here or to other parts of the world. Maybe if the French weren't SO DEEP into Saddam's pocket, then they would have suppoorted the war. And lets not forget the UN who CLEARLY KNEW Saddam was raiding the oil for food program money for his own personal use. Money meant for the Iraqi people going to buy a 24 karat gold toilet seat for presidential palace #7 for Saddam Hussein....and you guys are willing to tell me he should have stayed? Please.

Now you guys will come back and say "Well, Alex, wasnt Iran or N. Korea more important than Iraq?" Depends. These countries are pushed up against the wall diplomatically. Hell, they can barey fart without us noticing. The problem is Saddam was the biggest "under the sheets" threat. (if that makes no sense, just respond i'll go more into detail)

:rolleyes:

Debunked and demystified. You also lose points for spouting talking points again. ;)

Abortion, religious issues, gay rights, etc: I do not consider myself the best Cathollic of life. Hell, I never go to church, Do I agree with the church sometimes? Yes. Do I disagree witht he church sometime? yes. Abortion seems to be where I agree most. I think its wrong. Thats just my own view on it. Gay rights is where I get more liberal. I think privacy is very important. What happens at home stays at home. So, I have little problems with gay rights. I even think civil unions should be alllowed, and recognized by the state. Now, i do disagree with marriage. I feel religion is almost like joining a country club. Theres rules to join and rules to follow in both. If the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then theres really nothing you can really do. But I disagree with the states defining marriage. That should be seperation of church and state. Now I know there are MANY gay ledgies, and i respect them 100% as people and my friends, and I hope I did not offend anyone. Like I said, this is my own personal opinion and I hope I do not lose any Ledgie support.

So, because you think abortion is wrong, women who have no other choice should not have that option? Sounds like you're making a womans reproductive organs your business when they aren't. No woman tells me what to do with my appendage, no man should tell a woman what to do with hers.

Last time I checked, marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. The church has no say in the legal definition marriage, only who they marry.

Cuba: I've gone through this many times before. As a Cuban I just can not vote Democrat (Even though the Repubs have not done anything either). This is my strongest personal issue. My great grandfather was killed by the hands of the Castro regime, and I've said many times that I would in a heartbeat sacrifice my own life to have that evil man wiped off the face of the earth. I still have large amounts of family there and in pains me they are 90 miles away from me in a virtual prison.

Yup, those new Cuba policies Bush has are some wonderful things. :cool:

[GateandGarden]

Stem Cell Research: I support this, and before everyone jumps, million of extra fertility embryos get tossed every month...new embryos would not be created for this, just the use of ones that are already targeted for destruction...
I'm glad you brought that up. I totally agree. (I wonder why that hasn't been discussed as much as other issues on here?) It was just another reason I couldn't take Bush--his stance on stem cell research.

Hillary

[greatdarkwing]

:rolleyes:

Debunked and demystified. You also lose points for spouting talking points again. ;) :

LOL! It just seems to be wonderful we dont live near eachother doesn't it? :laugh:



So, because you think abortion is wrong, women who have no other choice should not have that option? Sounds like you're making a womans reproductive organs your business when they aren't. No woman tells me what to do with my appendage, no man should tell a woman what to do with hers.

Last time I checked, marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. The church has no say in the legal definition marriage, only who they marry.
The general public seems to disagree with you. Like I said...I am nowhere near religiously conservative as some may think, but thats just the way I feel.




:Yup, those new Cuba policies Bush has are some wonderful things. :cool:

Hey now, at this point any policy towards Cuba is the wrong one.

[strandinthewind]

My point: If the church doesnt want to they shouldnt have to. Do I disagree? A bit...Im on the fence.

~Alex

I do not think anyone is arguing that. When you get married usually two things happen:

1. You have a church ceremony

2. You enter into a civil contract of marriage which the state sanctions and provides automatic rights for - like SS benefots, visitation, etc.

I think number 2 should never happen. I think people should marry only in their respective churches, etc. Then, the Church or the state if asked should provide them with the required private legal documents to assure these rights, if they want them. That way the state is out of the marriage business altoghether. Moreover, if as asserted by the far religious right, all of these rights can be obatined via a private contract, then straight marriages would lose nothing :shrug:

[jadegypsy]

I'm glad you brought that up. I totally agree. (I wonder why that hasn't been discussed as much as other issues on here?) It was just another reason I couldn't take Bush--his stance on stem cell research.

Being a Californian and a Researcher it does rather push a few "hot" buttons for me, so that's why it came up...and Bushes stance especialy as the rest of the world moves ahead with this research enrages me...Just legalize it, fund it and legislate it (not human cloning). Otherwise it's going to be privatized with no rules, talk about a mess...

[ontheEdgeof17]

Oh, well I didn't think anyone was saying that the churches should have to recognize gay marriages. Some will and some won't. I didn't think anyone was arguing that the government should force the churches to do that--that is a violation of separation of church and state, isn't it? But gays could get married at city hall and such. :shrug:

Hillary


Who knew that equal insurance, health care, etc was such a religious issue? That's ALL we want.

[estranged4life]

Not sure if the conversation is really continuing with the W thing, but anyways...

I did vote for Kerry, mind you I don't like Kerry, what I like is the stance on issues, and that I would perfer to live under the Supreme Court Justices he would've appointed.

Stem Cell Research: I support this, and before everyone jumps, million of extra fertility embryos get tossed every month...new embryos would not be created for this, just the use of ones that are already targeted for destruction...


Im not a fan of Kerry's, But I did vote for him and I DO NOT regret it whatsoever.

I definitely agree about Stem Cell research. Stem Cell research is currently proving to be sucessful in treating cancer, Such as lymphoma which is what my wife Debbie suffered with this year (Hodgkin's Lymphoma). There are currently great progress using Stem Cells to treat Lymphoma whereas without Stem Cell research the results can usually be rather dire & possibly deadly.

I did not know much about Stem Cell research until Deb was ill and one of her oncologists explained one of the treatments, which was discovered via Stem Cell transfers...Which help to replace lost white cells due to chemo/radiation.

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

Specter urges caution for Bush
Discourages nominating anti-abortion judges



PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal "giants" on the bench.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

With at least three Supreme Court justices rumored to be eyeing retirement, including ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Specter, 74, would have broad authority to reshape the nation's highest court. He would have wide latitude to schedule hearings, call for votes and make the process as easy or as hard as he wants. (Rehnquist absent as high court returns)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, expressed confidence Wednesday that Bush will have more success his second term in winning the confirmation of his judicial nominees. (Supreme Court vacancy could come sooner than expected)

"I'm very confident that now we've gone from 51 seats to 55 seats, we will be able to overturn this what has become customary filibuster of judicial nominees," Frist said in Orlando, Florida.

See where he stands
Legal scholar Dennis Hutchinson said Specter's message to the White House appears to be "a way of asserting his authority" as he prepares to chair the Judiciary Committee when Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is term-limited from keeping the post next year.

"What he may be trying to do is say, 'Don't just think that I'm going to process what you send through. I have standards, I'm going to take an independent look, you have to deal with me,"' said Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (Health of the justices)

When asked Wednesday about Specter's impending chairmanship, another Republican on the panel, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, did not offer a ringing endorsement.

"We'll have to see where he stands," said Cornyn, a close friend of Bush who worked to get all of the president's nominees through the Senate. "I'm hoping that he will stand behind the president's nominees. I'm intending to sit down and discuss with him how things are going to work. We want to know what he's going do and how things are going to work."

While Specter is a loyal Republican -- Bush endorsed him in a tight Pennsylvania GOP primary -- he routinely crosses party lines to pass legislation and counts a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, as one of his closest friends.

A self-proclaimed moderate, he helped kill President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. Specter called both nominees too extreme on civil rights issues. Sessions later became a Republican senator from Alabama and now sits on the Judiciary Committee with Specter. (Election could tip balance)

Despite a bruising challenge from conservatives this year in Pennsylvania's GOP primary, Specter won re-election Tuesday by an 11-point margin by appealing to moderate Republicans and ticket-splitting Democrats, even as Pennsylvania chose Democrat John Kerry over Bush.

A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court."

"With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said.

Though he refused to describe the political leanings of the high court, Specter said he "would characterize myself as moderate; I'm in the political swim. I would look for justices who would interpret the Constitution, as Cardozo has said, reflecting the values of the people."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/specter.scotus.ap/index.html

[jadegypsy]

"1. You have a church ceremony

2. You enter into a civil contract of marriage which the state sanctions and provides automatic rights for - like SS benefots, visitation, etc.

I think number 2 should never happen. I think people should marry only in their respective churches, etc. Then, the Church or the state if asked should provide them with the required private legal documents to assure these rights, if they want them. That way the state is out of the marriage business altoghether. Moreover, if as asserted by the far religious right, all of these rights can be obatined via a private contract, then straight marriages would lose nothing "

Whoa, let me get this straight, CHURCH is IT?! How in the world are mixed religious marriages supposed to take place!? What if one is agnaostic? Or are you just saying there should be no mariiages at all and everything should just be called civil unions?! And how the heck to straigh marriages lose anything to civil marriages?

[strandinthewind]

Whoa, let me get this straight, CHURCH is IT?! How in the world are mixed religious marriages supposed to take place!? What if one is agnaostic? Or are you just saying there should be no mariiages at all and everything should just be called civil unions?! And how the heck to straigh marriages lose anything to civil marriages?

What I am saying is the govt. should have no say at all in marriage. The govt. should not define it or sanction it with automatic rights in any way. If you want to get married to whomever or however many people you want without govt. interference I promise you there is some crazy church out there that will marry you with or without the govt. sanctioning it - it happens all of the time right now. So, I say the govt. should stop all of the current laws geared toward marriage like visitation, inheritance tax exceptions, SS death benefits, etc. It should not be a govt. event. Let everyone be forced to arrange these through pricate contracts instead of automatic rights for heterosexual marriage only. I think that is the fairest way to handle marriage.

Moreover, atheists and agnostics should not care if there is a religious ceremony for their commitment and they should rejoice in heterosexual marriage not getting automatic rights.

Who knew I was such a radical!! :laugh: :laugh:

[Sugar]

Wow, that's pretty cool of Specter.

Now there's a Republican trying to be a leader for EVERYONE.

[jadegypsy]

I definitely agree about Stem Cell research. Stem Cell research is currently proving to be sucessful in treating cancer, Such as lymphoma which is what my wife Debbie suffered with this year (Hodgkin's Lymphoma). There are currently great progress using Stem Cells to treat Lymphoma whereas without Stem Cell research the results can usually be rather dire & possibly deadly.

Glad to hear the new treatments were helpful. How is she? Sorry if you have answered this before...


Oh and Strand: I guess I'm just the opposite I just think there should be civil unions for everyone. Leave the religions to bicker amongst themselves about what is right and equal for all...

[strandinthewind]

Oh and Strand: I guess I'm just the opposite I just think there should be civil unions for everyone. Leave the religions to bicker amongst themselves about what is right and equal for all...

I do not think I am making myself clear because we are sort of agreeing in spirit. In other words, why does the govt. need to call it anything? The reason is rights are currently attached to it. I am saying take those automatic rights away and let people contract privately for them.

I think if the govt. has absolutely no say so in who can or cannot get married and provides no automatic rights to any type of union or marriage (gay straight, etc. ) , then there can be no bickering about the rights assigned to it - there would be no automatic rights. I take this view because this way the argument that if we let gay people marry, the polygamists are next. Conversly, by your method, that argument and others will come up and this issue will NEVER go away :laugh: I think you think no church is going to perform a ceremony. Well, if not who cares under my method. But, that point is moot because thousands of churches already perform same sex commitment ceremonies, the govt. just does not recognize them for the most part :shrug: Again, the govt. has no business in the religious institution of marriage - it ought to stay out of it altogether IMO.

[estranged4life]

Glad to hear the new treatments were helpful. How is she? Sorry if you have answered this before...


great...She completed 5 radiation treatments daily for 4 weeks during August and is now in remission, It was worth the daily 200 mile round-trip.

She also did 12 bi-weekly Chemo treatments for 6 months beforehand...The radiation treatment wasnt really a requirement, But her Onocologist recommended it to further her chance of reccurring since it reduced the chances of reoccurement of the Lymphoma from 40% in the next 15 years to 15% for the rest of her life, So since her insurance was willing to pay for it she opted to did it.

Only side effect was she got a dark tan out of it, And her hair darken more than the natural color, So we found that kinda odd :shrug:

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

Abortion, religious issues, gay rights, etc: I do not consider myself the best Cathollic of life. Hell, I never go to church, Do I agree with the church sometimes? Yes. Do I disagree witht he church sometime? yes. Abortion seems to be where I agree most. I think its wrong. Thats just my own view on it.
~Alex

It easy for you to say. You'll never have to have one. My sex life is no one's business. Whatever medical procedures I choose to have are of no concern to anyone but me and my physician. Outlawing abortion will only serve to drive it to the back alleys again where it endangers women's lives. Once these children are born, who is going to provide for them? You? Your church? The government?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Only side effect was she got a dark tan out of it, And her hair darken more than the natural color, So we found that kinda odd :shrug:

Brian j.


Sounds like her treatment changed her melanin (responsible for pigment coloration).

[gldstwmn]

So, I, and I imagine others, are once bitten twice shy.

Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice....er, uh...won't get fooled again :]

[gldstwmn]

I have always said Barney is the best thing about W :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/presidential.pooch.ap/index.html

Wonder if this dog will run from W like Barney does? That's why he has to carry him. The dog will not walk with him. Animals know.

[gldstwmn]

TThe general public seems to disagree with you.


No. They don't. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

Wow, that's pretty cool of Specter.

Now there's a Republican trying to be a leader for EVERYONE.

Yup. That's how to unify a country. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Wonder if this dog will run from W like Barney does? That's why he has to carry him. The dog will not walk with him. Animals know.


In all fairness and having had four of them, Scotties RARELY come whrn called :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

It easy for you to say. You'll never have to have one. My sex life is no one's business. Whatever medical procedures I choose to have are of no concern to anyone but me and my physician. Outlawing abortion will only serve to drive it to the back alleys again where it endangers women's lives. Once these children are born, who is going to provide for them? You? Your church? The government?

AND - what gets me is they will not even allow a remedy that could reduce the number of abortions by I would think half. If they allowed sex ed and allowed access to condoms, etc. - that would reduce the need for abortions. But, for "them," which IMO means the religious right, the though of pre-marital sex is as great a sin as an abortion, which they consider murder :eek:

I think if we tuahgt sex ed, which would of course include abstinence as the only truly 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy, I think the results would be staggering.

[amber]

AND - what gets me is they will not even allow a remedy that could reduce the number of abortions by I would think half. If they allowed sex ed and allowed access to condoms, etc. - that would reduce the need for abortions. But, for "them," which IMO means the religious right, the though of pre-marital sex is as great a sin as an abortion, which they consider murder :eek:

I think if we tuahgt sex ed, which would of course include abstinence as the only truly 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy, I think the results would be staggering.
they could also be "taught" about the morning after pill...which i'm sure the access to is much more limited then it is here...

[Johnny Stew]

Specter urges caution for Bush
Discourages nominating anti-abortion judges

It's just too bad that he has a callous disregard for the importance of libraries. Especially those in small, poor communities.

Specter cut our budgets by FIFTY percent.
I'd like to see these politicians maintain their comfortable lifestyles with half their budget taken away.

[jadegypsy]

Strand: yeah I think we are agreeing in "spirit" in otherwords everyone should be allowed to "marry" and have the same rights...I guess we just see going about it two different ways, for me I think if there we just "civil unions" and they were viewed as a civil right then the talk of who can or can't get married would be a mute point, as would the rights since a civil union would allow for all the same "marriage" rights. But I don't claim to be any type of expert on how any of this really works. Although I must say I found the states passing the "marriage" laws absurd since no state has ever had to recognize another states marriage?! I understand your way as well, it's just when I first read it my reaction was WTF since I know ppl that were just married by the court...but hey any way that makes marriage less of an ideological game and more of a right is fine with me:) As for Polygamy well...I didn't really give it that much thought...now my brain is going to have to think... :rolleyes:

Brian: That's awsome to hear that she is doing good, cancer always strikes a nerve for me as it has claimed a few to many ppl in my life...I am hoping to one day get into cancer research...Didn't know stem cells were very useful, but then again now that I think about it, it would be nice to regenerate cells/organs lost or infected with cancer...

[strandinthewind]

they could also be "taught" about the morning after pill...which i'm sure the access to is much more limited then it is here...

Well, that is an abortion. I am talking about preventative education. BTW - I think condoms should be freely disctributed by parents because the risk of AIDS is so HUGE in teens. It is terrifying to think parents would rather have their kids get that disease than provide them protection. I know they would prefer them not to have sex, but in all honesty how many of us knew anyone who waited until marriage? I can say I knew one girl - so despite any desire to the contrary, kids are gonna have sex - so we should at least educate them about it :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Strand: yeah I think we are agreeing in "spirit" in otherwords everyone should be allowed to "marry" and have the same rights...I guess we just see going about it two different ways, for me I think if there we just "civil unions" and they were viewed as a civil right then the talk of who can or can't get married would be a mute point, as would the rights since a civil union would allow for all the same "marriage" rights. But I don't claim to be any type of expert on how any of this really works. Although I must say I found the states passing the "marriage" laws absurd since no state has ever had to recognize another states marriage?! I understand your way as well, it's just when I first read it my reaction was WTF since I know ppl that were just married by the court...but hey any way that makes marriage less of an ideological game and more of a right is fine with me:)


I know :laugh: I can be heady and wordy and sometimes what makes sense to me makes no sense to anyone else :eek: :laugh:

[jadegypsy]

they could also be "taught" about the morning after pill...which i'm sure the access to is much more limited then it is here...


Ohhh what a terrible thought (note sarcasm), I'm all for making this avalible and taught, BUT it does need to be SERIOUSLY taught, it is a form of abortion, it does deny a life, but it provides a economical, safe and private means...

Strand: totally agree with you on the condoms, I remember everyone got them in their prom bags at my school, of course it would be nice if they put the dispensers in school for HS and College, ppl need to be realistic, you would think with the "sexual revolution" generation running the country they would be realistic, but alas...

This brings to mind a really FUNNY story...My sex ed teacher was showing us a condom and she put both her hands in it and then pulled them apart and said "well girls don't ever fall for the exuse that the condom won't fit, because honey if the condom won't fit, he certainly won't fit in you." Of course all the girls laughed and the guys kinda turned red. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

they could also be "taught" about the morning after pill...which i'm sure the access to is much more limited then it is here...

There is a group of radical "Christian" pharmacists who are denying women this medication at pharmacies across the country.

[gldstwmn]

It's just too bad that he has a callous disregard for the importance of libraries. Especially those in small, poor communities.

Specter cut our budgets by FIFTY percent.
I'd like to see these politicians maintain their comfortable lifestyles with half their budget taken away.

Damn. I didn't know that. Well, there goes whatever admiration I might have had for him.

[gldstwmn]

Well, that is an abortion.

Nooooo it isn't. :mad: The hormones in the morning after pill may stop an egg from being released. Or they may stop a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the womb. That is NOT abortion. :mad:

[amber]

Nooooo it isn't. :mad: The hormones in the morning after pill may stop an egg from being released. Or they may stop a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the womb. That is NOT abortion. :mad:
ah, thank you. exactly. P.S. love your sig. pic.

[estranged4life]

There is a group of radical "Christian" pharmacists who are denying women this medication at pharmacies across the country.

"Dr.Death" Tom Coburn likes to use that pharmacy :nod:

[gldstwmn]

ah, thank you. exactly. P.S. love your sig. pic.

The words definitely needed an "angry Stevie" pic. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

"Dr.Death" Tom Coburn likes to use that pharmacy :nod:

He also wants to sentence doctors who perform abortions to the death penalty. That guy is crackers.

[amber]

He also wants to sentence doctors who perform abortions to the death penalty. That guy is crackers.
ha, how couldn't the whole world see the irony of sentencing someone to death for performing an abortion? Hello? Hello in there? (hears back echos from brain cavity) :D

[gldstwmn]

ha, how couldn't the whole world see the irony of sentencing someone to death for performing an abortion? Hello? Hello in there? (hears back echos from brain cavity) :D

He also sterilized some of his female patients while they were under anesthesia without telling them.

[estranged4life]

He also wants to sentence doctors who perform abortions to the death penalty. That guy is crackers.

he's from Muskogee, Where murder is acceptable but abortion is "inhuman"...

By-the-way, NOT all of us "Okies" are nutcases like that asshole!!!!

Brian j.

[amber]

He also sterilized some of his female patients while they were under anesthesia without telling them.
Jesus Christ! That's like, Nazi war criminal crap! :mad:

[estranged4life]

voting to help the farmers in SouthWest Oklahoma "Would make him nauseated" & that helping those farmers "Is not in his plans as Senator".

He called the city council of OKC "Crapheads" & said rather insulting things about the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma...And yet, He was still elected.

Man, He is the epitome of a "F**ktard"...

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

Jesus Christ! That's like, Nazi war criminal crap! :mad:

Google him. There's more. :nod: He also said there was rampant lesbianism in the public schools of Oklamhoma. :lol:

[amber]

voting to help the farmers in SouthWest Oklahoma "Would make him nauseated" & that helping those farmers "Is not in his plans as Senator".

He called the city council of OKC "Crapheads" & said rather insulting things about the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma...And yet, He was still elected.

Man, He is the epitome of a "F**ktard"...

Brian j.
"Oklahoma - The F**ktard State. Except for Brian"
come see us soon! :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

voting to help the farmers in SouthWest Oklahoma "Would make him nauseated" & that helping those farmers "Is not in his plans as Senator".

He called the city council of OKC "Crapheads" & said rather insulting things about the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma...And yet, He was still elected.

Man, He is the epitome of a "F**ktard"...

Brian j.

They don't even bother to hide the fascism any more. So what he's saying is, he'll thank his corporate masters.

[amber]

Google him. There's more. :nod: He also said there was rampant lesbianism in the public schools of Oklamhoma. :lol:
Rampant Lesbianism...A scourge upon the land... :rolleyes:
I can't believe this guy gets elected...Man, the Devil went down to Oklahoma...

[estranged4life]

Google him. There's more. :nod: He also said there was rampant lesbianism in the public schools of Oklamhoma. :lol:

statement I laughed my ass off...Especially when he said "Eastern Oklahoma" which is where I went to school, Matter of fact being a Muskogee High School alum myself, I dont remember all the females locking lips or engaging in "rampant lesbianism" :lol:

Brian j.

[estranged4life]

"Oklahoma - The F**ktard State. Except for Brian"
come see us soon! :laugh:

lay Waste the rest of the state :lol: :nod: :laugh:

Brian "Oklahoma: The Sooner state-The Sooner you suck ass the Sooner you're elected" j.

[amber]

statement I laughed my ass off...Especially when he said "Eastern Oklahoma" which is where I went to school, Matter of fact being a Muskogee High School alum myself, I dont remember all the females locking lips or engaging in "rampant lesbianism" :lol:

Brian j.
But if you did, that would be ok. :p

[amber]

lay Waste the rest of the state :lol: :nod: :laugh:

Brian "Oklahoma: The Sooner state-The Sooner you suck ass the Sooner you're elected" j.
Bwahahahahahaha!!! :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Nooooo it isn't. :mad: The hormones in the morning after pill may stop an egg from being released. Or they may stop a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the womb. That is NOT abortion. :mad:

If I am not mistaken it is abortion if the pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, which is one of the scenarios of this pill.

from an article in USA Today:

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills. If a woman already is pregnant, they have no effect. They work by preventing ovulation or fertilization, and possibly by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus, the medical definition of pregnancy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-12-16-fda-pill_x.htm

See also http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/morning_after_pill.html ("The morning-after pill, also known as emergency contraception or emergency birth control, is a pill regimen that a woman can take up to three days after she has had sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in her uterus. Its availability is limited by its controversial status; its use as a contraceptive is held to be immoral by some groups including the Catholic Church. Others who oppose its use classify its potential to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg as an abortion.")(emphasis supplied)

So, it can be an abortion if it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus :shrug:

[estranged4life]

But if you did, that would be ok. :p

whatsoever...I was like liquid in school, I had friends in all the cliques except for the uppity/preppies kidz who we loved to dare to jump just so we could/would/did kick the living hell outta of 'em...They're "all blow & no go".

I wonder what Dr.Matthews thinks of the man who replaced him after he retired from practice as the head OB at MRMC? Dr.Matthews was a great liberal who did more for Muskogee than Dr.Death ever will...And what's bad is Dr.Death will continue his practice part-time even while as a Senator!!!

Consider yer self lucky if ya dont reside Oklahoma...The most diehard religious NUTS are here and ya have to ALWAYS contend with 'em one way or another. They usually never say **** to me since I can shut up with one answer to their usual stupid ass first question:

Q-"Do you believe in God?"

A-"Yep...When I look in the mirror I see "his" reflection and he says you're a stupid ass he now regrets creating..."

Brian j.

[amber]

If I am not mistaken it is abortion if the pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, which is one of the scenarios of this pill.

from an article in USA Today:

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills. If a woman already is pregnant, they have no effect. They work by preventing ovulation or fertilization, and possibly by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus, the medical definition of pregnancy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-12-16-fda-pill_x.htm

See also http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/morning_after_pill.html ("The morning-after pill, also known as emergency contraception or emergency birth control, is a pill regimen that a woman can take up to three days after she has had sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in her uterus. Its availability is limited by its controversial status; its use as a contraceptive is held to be immoral by some groups including the Catholic Church. Others who oppose its use classify its potential to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg as an abortion.")(emphasis supplied)

So, it can be an abortion if it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus :shrug:
No, that's what makes it NOT an abortion. Cause no one is pregnant first...

[amber]

They usually never say **** to me since I can shut up with one answer to their usual stupid ass first question:

Q-"Do you believe in God?"

A-"Yep...When I look in the mirror I see "his" reflection and he says you're a stupid ass he now regrets creating..."

Brian j.
Bwah! :laugh: :lol:
do you really say that?

[estranged4life]

Bwah! :laugh: :lol:
do you really say that?

sure do...I just have a way with words when annoyed by idiots & 'tard-skis!

Poor Deb gets to hear me on a 24 hour round the clock basis, And yet she remembers the best lines and use 'em herself on those idiot people she works with...Damn plagirism!!!

Anyways, Here is a link to the "Wonderful & Great Christian himself Dr.Tom "My brain is aborted" Coburn":

Tom Coburn The Worst Possible Choice
http://www.bubbaworld.com/coburn.html

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

No, that's what makes it NOT an abortion. Cause no one is pregnant first...


Conception is when the sperm attaches to the egg and these people believe life begins at conception :shrug:

Then the fertilized egg (blastocyst) must attach itself to the wall of the uterus, which this pill, inter alia, prevents - thus it aborts the pregnancy. Again, it is an abortion because the egg has been fertilized and life has been conceived.

Interestingly, the USSC never really held it was not a life from the moment of conception, they essentially said the mother's right to provacy outweighed any state interest in protecting the child during the first trimester was outweighed by the mother's right to privacy. They reached this conclusion by noting that the end of the first trimester is when the baby begins to be viable outside of the womb, thus the rights of state protection attach. The exact wording of the Court was:
_________________________________________________
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
_________________________________________________

There is MUCH more to Roe than that, but that is it in a nutshell. Here is a site containing Roe, which is a fascinating read in that Justice Blackmun essentially creates the right to privacy because it does not exist literally in the Const. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Here is a lesson for you :D

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5049,00.html

in relevant part:

Fertilization

When the sperm find the egg, the first one to penetrate the egg creates a barrier to all the other sperm. The cells of the fertilized egg (zygote) begin to multiply, staying clustered together in a ball. This ball of cells, called a blastocyst, slowly makes its way down to the uterus (three or four days after ovulation) and burrows into the uterine wall (five to seven days after ovulation), a process known as implantation. Even before the placenta and umbilical cord are formed, the cells of the developing embryo start getting their nourishment from the mother-to-be's uterine wall.

and some more:

http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/conception.htm

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/51/40790.htm

and from Merriam Webster

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abortion

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy -- compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION
2 : MONSTROSITY
3 : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest

[amber]

sure do...I just have a way with words when annoyed by idiots & 'tard-skis!

Poor Deb gets to hear me on a 24 hour round the clock basis, And yet she remembers the best lines and use 'em herself on those idiot people she works with...Damn plagirism!!!

Anyways, Here is a link to the "Wonderful & Great Christian himself Dr.Tom "My brain is aborted" Coburn":

Tom Coburn The Worst Possible Choice
http://www.bubbaworld.com/coburn.html

Brian j.
Geez, i read that. I never pegged Oklahoma as a "sleepin with your brother" state, but what the f**k is that guy's problem??? He's the most inbred sounding Mutherf**ker i've ever heard of! And people vote for him! It's inconceivable... :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

I have family in Oklahoma City, who happen to be deeply religious, and yet also liberal/Democrats.

See, the trouble is that being a liberal/Democrat has somehow been equated with being against morals and being against God, yadda-yadda-yadda.

I respect people with deep beliefs. I have deep beliefs of my own. It's just a pity that people who consider themselves deeply religious and devoutly Christian, feel that the Republican party is the best answer.

My EXTREMELY Catholic mother would never support a party she felt was "against God" in any way, shape or form.
Unfortunately, other people have bought into the propaganda, and feel that the "moral choice" is to vote Republican. Of course, I've never been able to figure out the rationality behind being pro-Life, yet pro-death penalty (if we're going to follow God's rule about not taking one life, then why do we get to go over God's head, so to speak, and decide it's ok to take another?).
Or the rationality behind stating that religion is of the utmost importance (and, therefore, following God's word against hatred, murder and violence), but looking the other way when Republican presidents start wars under the flimsiest of reasons.

But anyway.

[estranged4life]

Geez, i read that. I never pegged Oklahoma as a "sleepin with your brother" state, but what the f**k is that guy's problem??? He's the most inbred sounding Mutherf**ker i've ever heard of! And people vote for him! It's inconceivable... :shrug:

God card, and yet again it worked...That's why I rip on religion so much, Oklahomans view of religion is the MOST warped that you'll see in the U.S., They rank right behind "fundamentalist fruitcakes" in my books Tsk, tsk, tsk

Kinda funny he said the sterilization he performed without permission was legally done as was the claim turned into to "Medicaid", But the OK AG Drew Edmondson stated "That is not true...He commited medicaid fraud".

Yep, Oklahoma...Making those folkz in Ark-i-saw not look as inbred as many are led to believe!!

Brian j.

[amber]

Conception is when the sperm attaches to the egg and these people believe life begins at conception :shrug:

Then the egg must attach itself to the wall of the uterus, which this pill, inter alia, prevents - thus it aborts the pregnancy.

Here is a lesson for you :D

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5049,00.html

in relevant part:

Fertilization

When the sperm find the egg, the first one to penetrate the egg creates a barrier to all the other sperm. The cells of the fertilized egg (zygote) begin to multiply, staying clustered together in a ball. This ball of cells, called a blastocyst, slowly makes its way down to the uterus (three or four days after ovulation) and burrows into the uterine wall (five to seven days after ovulation), a process known as implantation. Even before the placenta and umbilical cord are formed, the cells of the developing embryo start getting their nourishment from the mother-to-be's uterine wall.

and some more:

http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/conception.htm

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/51/40790.htm

and from Merriam Webster

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abortion

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy -- compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION
2 : MONSTROSITY
3 : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest

That's a bit insulting as usual. BUT - ok.
Semantics are great! :rolleyes: ;) They really speak to the Point! :cool:
I guess that's pretty irrelevant to me. Even as a scientific point, I just don't believe a 2-3 day old conglomeration of cells, which hasn't even attached to the uterine wall is a "pregnancy". But, since it is, I don't care anyway...so... :shrug:
However, I commend your effort to exacticate me! :) Thanks for the info... :woohoo: :wavey:
My point is, I wouldn't care anyway...

[estranged4life]

I have family in Oklahoma City, who happen to be deeply religious, and yet also liberal/Democrats.


OKC is the only place in this state where you can find liberals...Thus Dr.Death's "Crapheads" comment.

Brian j.

[amber]

Yep, Oklahoma...Making those folkz in Ark-i-saw not look as inbred as many are led to believe!!

Brian j.
Bwah!, again. :laugh: :lol:
It's nice to learn about the real midwest/south, a la Brian :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

That's a bit insulting as usual. BUT - ok.
Semantics are great! :rolleyes: ;) They really speak to the Point! :cool:
I guess that's pretty irrelevant to me. Even as a scientific point, I just don't believe a 2-3 day old conglomeration of cells, which hasn't even attached to the uterine wall is a "pregnancy". But, since it is, I don't care anyway...so... :shrug:
However, I commend your effort to exacticate me! :) Thanks for the info... :woohoo: :wavey:
My point is, I wouldn't care anyway...

No - that was not your point - you said it was not an abortion. I was replying to that. I was trying to educate you - but I guess you took that the wrong way and as an insult - Whatever. I mean usually you are begging for information and now you act put upon when it is offered without the ubiquitous request :shrug:

AND - if you want I can also teach you the meaning of insult :wavey: (lighten up I am joking :laugh: )

In any event, preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus is clearly an abortion under Roe - read the decision which, in relevant part and when discussing when the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn child attaches, says (emphasis supplied):
_________________________________________________________

The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.
________________________________________________________

Note: I edited my previous post as you replied.

[amber]

No - that was not your point - you said it was not an abortion. I was replying to that. I was trying to educate you - but I guess you took that the wrong way and as an insult - Whatever. I mean usually you are begging for information and now you act put upon when it is offered without the ubiquitous request :shrug:

AND - if you want I can also teach you the meaning of insult :wavey: (lighten up I am joking :laugh: )

In any event, preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus is clearly an abortion under Roe - read the decision.

Note: I edited my previous post as you replied.
yeah, i still don't really think that counts as an ab. Clearly, it does, under Roe...got it. but again, I don't care. Although, when discussing law, i will apply it and care, appropriately. I just don't think it has much place in the overall point.
And that is why i thanked you for the info, because i DO appreciate it. Are you saying it's hard to tell when i'm sarcastic or not? :mad: :laugh:
And since when do you offer me free info? :laugh:
And don't make me teach you the real meaning of "joke" :D :laugh:
what's your birthday?

[Johnny Stew]

Even as a scientific point, I just don't believe a 2-3 day old conglomeration of cells, which hasn't even attached to the uterine wall is a "pregnancy".

Another oddity I've never understood is the very same party that opposes abortion, is largely filled with hunting/gun advocates.

If you hunt, that's fine. I eat meat, so I have no room to talk.
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people are so adamantly opposed to abortion because it's considered the taking of a life, and therefore goes against God's wishes, and, yet, they apparently have no qualms about the shooting of deer, doves, pheasant, etc.... which are all God's creatures, too.

So, these are the things I don't understand.... believing in God and moralty and feeling that life is precious, but voting for the very politicians whose deceptions cost thousands of American lives (and untold foreign lives), and who support laws that would take away the life of one of God's creatures (whether it be human or animal).

[strandinthewind]

yeah, i still don't really think that counts as an ab. Clearly, it does, under Roe...got it. but again, I don't care. Although, when discussing law, i will apply it and care, appropriately.

Just do not do that with the police :laugh:

[amber]

Just do not do that with the police :laugh:
I won't. Not that i'll ever talk to them, as a white-ish girl in Oakland...zing!
uh, birthday?

[strandinthewind]

Another oddity I've never understood is the very same party that opposes abortion, is largely filled with hunting/gun advocates.

If you hunt, that's fine. I eat meat, so I have no room to talk.
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people are so adamantly opposed to abortion because it's considered the taking of a life, and therefore goes against God's wishes, and, yet, they apparently have no qualms about the shooting of deer, doves, pheasant, etc.... which are all God's creatures, too.

So, these are the things I don't understand.... believing in God and moralty and feeling that life is precious, but voting for the very politicians whose deceptions cost thousands of American lives (and untold foreign lives), and who support laws that would take away the life of one of God's creatures (whether it be human or animal).

These people believe Man rules the Earth and all are subject to man, by the will of God. A Biblical verse exists to support this. I will look for it.

Here is one:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:28

and another:

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;

The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Psalms 8:3,9

There are more - but those should suffice :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I won't. Not that i'll ever talk to them, as a white-ish girl in Oakland...zing!
uh, birthday?


I am a Sag. 11/28

[Johnny Stew]

These people believe Man rules the Earth and all are subject to man, bu the will of God. A Biblical verse exists to support this. I will look for it.

I could swear there's also a biblical passage which states that it's up to us to protect and cherish ALL of God's creatures. Not just the ones which don't happen to taste good. :shrug:

[amber]

Another oddity I've never understood is the very same party that opposes abortion, is largely filled with hunting/gun advocates.

If you hunt, that's fine. I eat meat, so I have no room to talk.
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people are so adamantly opposed to abortion because it's considered the taking of a life, and therefore goes against God's wishes, and, yet, they apparently have no qualms about the shooting of deer, doves, pheasant, etc.... which are all God's creatures, too.

So, these are the things I don't understand.... believing in God and moralty and feeling that life is precious, but voting for the very politicians whose deceptions cost thousands of American lives (and untold foreign lives), and who support laws that would take away the life of one of God's creatures (whether it be human or animal).
That's my main gripe, if you must know. But i think in one translation, the King James, it says people have dominion over the animals. But then really, it was a mistranslation, and is supposed to say, people have responsibility to protect and care for all god's creatures. You're preaching to the choir, man... :p
And, actually, i am not against hunting for food. Although, i know that people don't need to eat as much meat as they do. That's why our digestive system is so squiggly and long...not straight like a carnivore's....but many people are waaay beyond hunting for food. I also believe in the old Native way, of killing what you need, using every part of the animal, and giving thanks, for the creature of "god" who has just nourished your existence.
My grandpa hunts, eats deer jerky, eats pheasant, etc. I mean, he eats the stuff.. :shrug: And enjoys hunting. But not for the same reasons that icky people do...Course, he's a Sierra Valley country-ass (in a California Italian Way) nature guy.
oops, random story...
but yeah, i totally agree.

[amber]

I am a Sag. 11/28
wow, day after my mom! She likes to get into grammar arguments :rolleyes: if i had a dollar for every time i was forced to respond to...something about "went"... :laugh:
uh, anyway...I could say some cool stuff, but i won't... :laugh: figured you were a fire sign...
I have moon in Sag, myself, but, you probably don't know what that means, or will think...

[strandinthewind]

I could swear there's also a biblical passage which states that it's up to us to protect and cherish ALL of God's creatures. Not just the ones which don't happen to taste good. :shrug:

Well, The Bible speaks of man having dominion over the Earth - so that implies care :shrug: But, clearly it contemplated meat eating - There were few vegetarians then and it certainly does not speak of them :laugh:

Also, when ya get right down to it, plants are alive as well, yet we eat them :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

If I am not mistaken it is abortion if the pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, which is one of the scenarios of this pill.

from an article in USA Today:

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills. If a woman already is pregnant, they have no effect. They work by preventing ovulation or fertilization, and possibly by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus, the medical definition of pregnancy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-12-16-fda-pill_x.htm

See also http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/morning_after_pill.html ("The morning-after pill, also known as emergency contraception or emergency birth control, is a pill regimen that a woman can take up to three days after she has had sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in her uterus. Its availability is limited by its controversial status; its use as a contraceptive is held to be immoral by some groups including the Catholic Church. Others who oppose its use classify its potential to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg as an abortion.")(emphasis supplied)

So, it can be an abortion if it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus :shrug:

The Catholic church should have been your first clue. The morning after pill is not abortion.
Now I would like you and the church out of my ovaries and pills please. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

The Catholic church should have been your first clue. The morning after pill is not abortion.
Now I would like you and the church out of my ovaries and pills please. :laugh:


According to Roe and Merriam Webster it is :shrug:

But, I readily agree the newer pill is not the same as the so called "abortion pill" a/k/a RU-486, which actually took the fetus from the wall of the uterus.

[Johnny Stew]

That's my main gripe, if you must know. But i think in one translation, the King James, it says people have dominion over the animals. But then really, it was a mistranslation, and is supposed to say, people have responsibility to protect and care for all god's creatures. You're preaching to the choir, man... :p
And, actually, i am not against hunting for food.

I'm not against hunting for food either. Like I said, I eat meat, so I don't have room to talk. I just can't reconcile the notion of being vehemently pro-life and, yet, having no problems with the taking of the life of another of God's creatures.

I think humankind's biggest mistake is our arrogrance... that we matter more than other creatures, the land we live on, etc.

(By the way, the King James version is a bunch of crock. How any woman can follow that version, with its extremely chauvinistic attitude towards females, is beyond me.)

[amber]

Well, The Bible speaks of man having dominion over the Earth - so that implies care :shrug: But, clearly it contemplated meat eating - There were few vegetarians then and it certainly does not speak of them :laugh:

Also, when ya get right down to it, plants are alive as well, yet we eat them :shrug:
Yep, but again, I think that was a mistranslation, in the King James...
worst.bible.ever.
Amber

[amber]

I'm not against hunting for food either. Like I said, I eat meat, so I don't have room to talk. I just can't reconcile the notion of being vehemently pro-life and, yet, having no problems with the taking of the life of another of God's creatures.

I think humankind's biggest mistake is our arrogrance... that we matter more than other creatures, the land we live on, etc.

(By the way, the King James version is a bunch of crock. How any woman can follow that version, with its extremely chauvinistic attitude towards females, is beyond me.)
Me, too, i've said this billions of times. It's my main "thing" :D

[strandinthewind]

Yep, but again, I think that was a mistranslation, in the King James...
worst.bible.ever.
Amber

While I agree both KJ versions leave alot to be desired, the Jewish Torah uses "dominion" as well :shrug:

Here is one site of many:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/animals.htm

(Where o Where is :angel: Jake when I need him to confirm thus :eek: )

[amber]

wow, day after my mom! She likes to get into grammar arguments :rolleyes: if i had a dollar for every time i was forced to respond to...something about "went"... :laugh:
uh, anyway...I could say some cool stuff, but i won't... :laugh: figured you were a fire sign...
I have moon in Sag, myself, but, you probably don't know what that means, or will think...
oh, i remember...I'd be all "I should've went, blah blah" and she would stop the whole conversation, and say "should've WHAT? SHOULD'VE WHAT!?" then i had to say "should've GONE..."
*sigh* :rolleyes:

[Johnny Stew]

Well, The Bible speaks of man having dominion over the Earth - so that implies care :shrug: But, clearly it contemplated meat eating - There were few vegetarians then and it certainly does not speak of them :laugh:

And, no matter how much of a heretic I may seem, this is the reason that I have such a problem with the bible being taken as "God's Law."

Excuse me, but the bible was written by MEN.
Fallible men who interpreted the Word Of God, and Jesus' teachings, to suit their needs, and to fit their viewpoints.

Plus, at the end of the day, I don't understand the gleeful willingness to follow SOME of what's in the bible, but to then ignore other passages about human sacrifices, and sexual relations with menstruating women, etc., etc.

I would think that one thing should be just as important as another.
Unless it doesn't suit your whims of course.

[amber]

While I agree both KJ versions leave alot to be desired, the Jewish Torah uses "dominion" as well :shrug:

Here is one site of many:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/animals.htm

(Where o Where is :angel: Jake when I need him to confirm thus :eek: )
But, that is still not right. Some guy just made that up...

[gldstwmn]

According to Roe and Merriam Webster it is :shrug:

Then THEY need to get out of my ovaries and pills as well. I'm not going to argue protoplasm with you this evening.

[amber]

And, no matter how much of a heretic I may seem, this is the reason that I have such a problem with the bible being taken as "God's Law."

Excuse me, but the bible was written by MEN.
Fallible men who interpreted the Word Of God, and Jesus' teachings, to suit their needs, and to fit their viewpoints.

Plus, at the end of the day, I don't understand the gleeful willingness to follow SOME of what's in the bible, but to then ignore other passages about human sacrifices, and sexual relations with menstruating women, etc., etc.

I would think that one thing should be just as important as another.
Unless it doesn't suit your whims of course.
hello, my argument from earlier in the week? :laugh: :wavey:
TOTALLY! Exactly!

[strandinthewind]

Then THEY need to get out of my ovaries and pills as well. I'm not going to argue protoplasm with you this evening.

LOL - you and your protoplasmeZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :laugh:

I agree - back to W it is.

Did I mention he was quoted today as anxious to exercise his new political "CLOUT"

:mad:

[strandinthewind]

But, that is still not right. Some guy just made that up...

Perhaps, but we are talking 1,000's of years prior to King James and, for that matter, the Catholic Church :laugh:

[amber]

Perhaps, but we are talking 1,000's of years prior to King James and, for that matter, the Catholic Church :laugh:
I said "right" not....uh...I should've went somewhere tonight....
Mwahahahahahaha!

[gldstwmn]

=strandinthewind
Did I mention he was quoted today as anxious to exercise his new political "CLOUT"

:mad:

Falujah is scheduled to be a parking lot next week.
He also mention something about the people "at his back."

[sodascouts]

Another oddity I've never understood is the very same party that opposes abortion, is largely filled with hunting/gun advocates.

If you hunt, that's fine. I eat meat, so I have no room to talk.
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people are so adamantly opposed to abortion because it's considered the taking of a life, and therefore goes against God's wishes, and, yet, they apparently have no qualms about the shooting of deer, doves, pheasant, etc.... which are all God's creatures, too.

So, these are the things I don't understand.... believing in God and moralty and feeling that life is precious, but voting for the very politicians whose deceptions cost thousands of American lives (and untold foreign lives), and who support laws that would take away the life of one of God's creatures (whether it be human or animal).

On the other side of that, why is it illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg, but OK to destroy a human fetus? At any rate, you obviously see a difference between killing humans and killing animals, and value human life over animal life, yet you can't understand why Christians make the same distinction? That puzzles me.

The difference between death penalty and abortion is one of innocence. If one truly believes life begins at conception, which I recognize not all people do, wouldn't you at least in theory agree it is more heinous to kill a baby than a murderer, and see the difference between the two? Put yourself in the shoes of one who believes life begins at conception and I think you'll understand the distinction we make, even if you disagree.

I'm not exactly into guns, but I understand the need for them in cases of self-defense, which again I define differently from murder. Doesn't a victim have a right to defend him/herself? If someone was trying to kill you, and you had to kill them to save yourself, I certainly wouldn't call you a murderer!

I believe the war had good results. War is sometimes necessary. There are pacifist Christians, and I understand their moral objection, but as I said in an earlier posts, I do not classify war as murder.

And, no matter how much of a heretic I may seem, this is the reason that I have such a problem with the bible being taken as "God's Law."

Excuse me, but the bible was written by MEN.
Fallible men who interpreted the Word Of God, and Jesus' teachings, to suit their needs, and to fit their viewpoints.

I realize you don't believe this, but the Bible is considered by Christians to be divinely inspired. That's why we can overlook that.

Plus, at the end of the day, I don't understand the gleeful willingness to follow SOME of what's in the bible, but to then ignore other passages about human sacrifices, and sexual relations with menstruating women, etc., etc.

The Bible condemns human sacrifices as abhorrent, Johnny. If you're referring to the Abraham story, God did not actually desire the sacrifice, remember? Also, many of the older laws such as the one you mentioned were very practical in an age rampant with disease.

I hope that helps you to understand to some degree why I do not consider myself a gleeful hypocrite, although it may not change your judgment on the matter.

[dissention]

The general public seems to disagree with you. Like I said...I am nowhere near religiously conservative as some may think, but thats just the way I feel.

I don't give a flying f*ck what the general public thinks of marriage. The FACT, the UNDENIABLE FACT, is that marriage is a legal institution. It is not a religious institution, churches do not and cannot issue marriage licenses. The general public can think what they want, it doesn't mean they're correct. Thankfully, I live in MA where people in love can commit themselves to each other no matter what sex they are. Love is more important than the attitudes and bigotry of the general public anyday.

I also think that any religious institution that aids and encourages child molesters and child rapists should think twice before launching a morality attack on gay marriage. But that's just me.

[dissention]

Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice....er, uh...won't get fooled again :]

Is that a saying in Texas or Tennesse? ;)

[dissention]

The difference between death penalty and abortion is one of innocence. If one truly believes life begins at conception, which I recognize not all people do, wouldn't you at least in theory agree it is more heinous to kill a baby than a murderer, and see the difference between the two? Put yourself in the shoes of one who believes life begins at conception and I think you'll understand the distinction we make, even if you disagree.


What a ridiculous statement.

So, people of religion aren't opposed to abortion because it's a living being, they're opposed to it because it's an innocent being? Executing people is no big deal because they did something wrong? Ugh.

[dissention]

I do not classify war as murder.

Tell that to the victims of the Iraqi wedding party that were bombed out of their tuxedos. Tell that to the children and babies who were buried underneath 20 tons of rubble after their schools and mosques were bombed. Tell that to the innocents who had their limbs decapitated because they had napalm all over them. Tell that to the mothers who prayed to God for revenge because their sons were killed for nothing. What a heartless statement, intended or not. I nominate that we send you to the front lines and then you can report back and tell us all about it.

[dissention]

****. You're the one Republican I really would prefer to avoid arguing with but, surely not? I really have to ask how you can believe this statement. This war had good results? For 100 000 innocent Iraqi civilians the result was death. How can their deaths be downgraded from what they are, that being murder. What an insult to these people and the hundreds of thousands who they leave behind (most likely maimed). Being represented by a regime that performs these killings, we should atleast have the decency to acknowledge to these people that they were murdered. That's the very least that can be done. And there is no excuse represented in the claim that America doesn't target civilians. It was known that these were civilians areas and it was known that the Iraqi regime was no threat. With that knowledge, the air strikes which caused the majority of those 100 000 deaths were acts of murder.

We acknowledge that those who died on Sept 11 were murdered, why can't we acknowledg that these unnecessary deaths were acts of murder. The media won't show you, but you go looking around on the net and you'll find pictures of children's heads hollowed out, bodies torn in two etc. Perhaps people need to see these things to realise that it's not their right to wash these actions over as acceptable and feel ok about it. It's nobody's right to subject even one person to this and that is why it is murder. Damn it, I don't want to be angry, not at you, but I find it devastating that you could degrade these people already deprived of their right to life.

When you're right, you're right. :laugh:

Unfortunately, I think Nancy's statements and feelings are shared by the majority of Americans. They don't consider this war murder because they have nothing invested in it; they aren't the ones over there being blown to bits and if their children are over there, they will blindly support the war because of it. The majority of Americans simply don't care about the Iraqi's, they just like to see us flex our muscles as the biggest superpower. I bet you that I could pull a hundred random people off the street, ask them what the Iraqi death tool is so far, and they would have no clue whatsoever. Why? For one, they don't pay attention, they go by sound bytes. Secondly, the mainstream media doesn't report it. I can tell you right now, though, if they Iraqi's or the North Korean's declared war and came over to bomb us to death, these same people who don't think this war is murder would immediately cry that they were murdering us. But it all ties into the belief that the US can do no wrong, no matter who dies or they hurt. And that is disgusting.

Anyone who can say that a baby being blown to pieces has a good result is more delusional than I thought possible.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Two things: I believe many bush supporters do not believe the war in iraq is the right thing especially after all of the evidence over the past few years. Look through the "why support bush" thread and you'll see very few people saying we should stay in Iraq and that is why they wanted him to remain president.

Second: I do believe innocents killed in war is murder, but this 100,000 figure is incorrect. The number comes from a report done by Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham. From an analysis of the report: "The report is based on extensive household survey research in Iraq in September of 2004. The methodology of this study is very tight, but it does involve extrapolating from a small number and so could easily be substantially incorrect." The number officially released is 16,000. It is estimated that Saddam killed 300,000. I do not believe any of these figures are correct, but the truth probably is that the number killed in the war is a very small percentage of those killed by Saddam. This sounds more like I am attempting to justify it than I really mean to. The war was wrong and no innocent lives should be lost even if we had been asked into the country.

Michael

[dissention]

Two things: I believe many bush supporters do not believe the war in iraq is the right thing especially after all of the evidence over the past few years. Look through the "why support bush" thread and you'll see very few people saying we should stay in Iraq and that is why they wanted him to remain president.

While I wholly disagree with this, I will say one thing about it. For a long time, those in other countries did not like us because of what we were doing, especially after 9/11. That being said, they never totally disliked us because the sense was that the American people, by and large, didn't totally support the ideals of this administration (religious issues, moral issues, etc.). That has completely changed now. Those issues had a large part in Bush getting re-elected and now people in foreign countries are now realizing exactly how radical people in this country are; it scares them. And it isn't pretty. It's bad enough that they can't stand us because of our foreign policies, but this just adds insult to injury.

[gldstwmn]

Tell that to the victims of the Iraqi wedding party that were bombed out of their tuxedos. Tell that to the children and babies who were buried underneath 20 tons of rubble after their schools and mosques were bombed. Tell that to the innocents who had their limbs decapitated because they had napalm all over them. Tell that to the mothers who prayed to God for revenge because their sons were killed for nothing. What a heartless statement, intended or not. I nominate that we send you to the front lines and then you can report back and tell us all about it.

Everybody who voted for Bush must now go to war. :nod: I like it.

[dissention]

Everybody who voted for Bush must now go to war. :nod: I like it.

Me, too. Let's see how they like being blown up and having their pay cut at the same time. Let's see how they like wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets on the front lines and eating plastic turkeys for Thanksgiving.

[strandinthewind]

. . . but this 100,000 figure is incorrect. . . .

Well, if the U.S. had bothered to follow the Geneva Convention (by which as a signatory it is bound) - we would know how many Iraqi's were killed becuase the GC requires us to tally that number and report it. But, Rumsfeld could not be bothered and apparently many in the administration think such a number is irrelevant, esp. when you are doing the work Jesus told you to do :rolleyes: :mad:

[dissention]

And it should scare the crap out of Americans because throughout much of the western world, Bush is arguably the most hated man. I'm sure most Americans would be startled that Bin Laden is not the clear winner and that Bush even rates.

I remember seeing some news guy (he was famous over there, which is a bizarre concept in itself. Celebrity newsreaders? Shows the state of the news) go on Letterman when it came on air after Sept 11. He was explaining that this occured because they are jealous of American freedoms. They don't like democracy. What a load of total ****. The rest of the world are not a bunch of whinging, jealous little kids who don't like that someone else got a bigger piece of cake (and by the way, many other countries have more freedoms. They would have attacked the Scandanavians if this were the case). This anger in so much of the world wasn't just pulled out of nowhere. Most can see what is happening, either because it directly impacts upon them or because they aren't fed propaganda by Bush Administration, Fox and the likes.

That was Dan Rather. :rolleyes:

The argument that "they hate us because of our freedoms" is so insulting and simplistic that it serves no purpose but to toot America's own horn. It's not a statement that is supported by facts, yet people choose to believe it. Tells you a lot about people, though.

[GateandGarden]

So, people of religion aren't opposed to abortion because it's a living being, they're opposed to it because it's an innocent being? Executing people is no big deal because they did something wrong? Ugh.:nod: My thoughts exactly.

Hillary

[strandinthewind]

Me, too. Let's see how they like being blown up and having their pay cut at the same time. Let's see how they like wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets on the front lines and eating plastic turkeys for Thanksgiving.

It is like arm chair quarterbacking of the highest order. I cannot tell you how many people I have confronted with this same argument, e.g. "If it is such a righteous war, if you think SH being a jerk was reason enough, and if you think the whole WMD was irrelevant - I think you should enlist now and/or enlist your of age children." That is usually met with a "Screw You" or a Dick Cheneyesq. "I have better things to do" :mad: Needless to say, I have not been too popular at cocktail parties this last year :laugh:

I mean I get that not everone can fight in the war in Iraq, but clearly some of these zealots could instead of letting the poor and the black do it for them :shrug: I do think, however, ALL people in Congress who vote for the war should send their kids - hence MM's point in that propaganda ( :laugh: :p )

[GateandGarden]

I don't give a flying f*ck what the general public thinks of marriage. The FACT, the UNDENIABLE FACT, is that marriage is a legal institution. It is not a religious institution, churches do not and cannot issue marriage licenses. The general public can think what they want, it doesn't mean they're correct. Thankfully, I live in MA where people in love can commit themselves to each other no matter what sex they are. Love is more important than the attitudes and bigotry of the general public anyday.
All I can say is thank you for that. What else can we say other than the general public is just ignorant about this issue?

Hillary

[dissention]

All I can say is thank you for that. What else can we say other than the general public is just ignorant about this issue?

Hillary

You're welcome. :xoxo: I think their own bigotry and disdain of "queers" only inhibit them from grasping the full definition of love. And they're the ones that lose out.

[strandinthewind]

That was Dan Rather. :rolleyes:

The argument that "they hate us because of our freedoms" is so insulting and simplistic that it serves no purpose but to toot America's own horn. It's not a statement that is supported by facts, yet people choose to believe it. Tells you a lot about people, though.

While I disagree with the statement in general, in nuance, it has some merit. They see our freedoms and the freedoms of our women as an insult and against Allah. I think they are scared that if these freedoms spread to their country, it will cause their religious dominance to end. This can be seen in the text of speeches over the last few years and they, like we do to them, refer to the West as Godless. So, there is an ounce of truth to that statement about jealousy.

CAVEAT: I am not REPEAT NOT saying they are running aroung jealous of us; that is just silly.

[Serrart]

While I wholly disagree with this, I will say one thing about it. For a long time, those in other countries did not like us because of what we were doing, especially after 9/11. That being said, they never totally disliked us because the sense was that the American people, by and large, didn't totally support the ideals of this administration (religious issues, moral issues, etc.). That has completely changed now. Those issues had a large part in Bush getting re-elected and now people in foreign countries are now realizing exactly how radical people in this country are; it scares them. And it isn't pretty. It's bad enough that they can't stand us because of our foreign policies, but this just adds insult to injury.

I'm in one of those other Countries and I can honestly say that Americans haven't been considered till now distant from Bush's ideas, we perceive people like Michael Moore as exceptions to the rule. Our media believed Bush would have won again. So now the general feeling in our public opinion is disappointment because he would be around for other four years. It means for us that the situation in Middle East can only get worse, our troops won't come back home soon and elections in Iraq would be very unlikely to happen. The link among American patriotism and a radical concept of religion isn't seen as a novelty, but as a confirmation.

Romy

[greatdarkwing]

On the other side of that, why is it illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg, but OK to destroy a human fetus? At any rate, you obviously see a difference between killing humans and killing animals, and value human life over animal life, yet you can't understand why Christians make the same distinction? That puzzles me.

The difference between death penalty and abortion is one of innocence. If one truly believes life begins at conception, which I recognize not all people do, wouldn't you at least in theory agree it is more heinous to kill a baby than a murderer, and see the difference between the two? Put yourself in the shoes of one who believes life begins at conception and I think you'll understand the distinction we make, even if you disagree.

I'm not exactly into guns, but I understand the need for them in cases of self-defense, which again I define differently from murder. Doesn't a victim have a right to defend him/herself? If someone was trying to kill you, and you had to kill them to save yourself, I certainly wouldn't call you a murderer!

I believe the war had good results. War is sometimes necessary. There are pacifist Christians, and I understand their moral objection, but as I said in an earlier posts, I do not classify war as murder.



I realize you don't believe this, but the Bible is considered by Christians to be divinely inspired. That's why we can overlook that.



The Bible condemns human sacrifices as abhorrent, Johnny. If you're referring to the Abraham story, God did not actually desire the sacrifice, remember? Also, many of the older laws such as the one you mentioned were very practical in an age rampant with disease.

I hope that helps you to understand to some degree why I do not consider myself a gleeful hypocrite, although it may not change your judgment on the matter.

PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE SINGLE AND AVAILABLE! :nod: :laugh: ;)

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE SINGLE AND AVAILABLE! :nod: :laugh: ;)

~Alex


Well, I cannot comment on that, but I can tell ya she is a great person AND she is smokin' hot in a pair of Stevie boots :cool: :woohoo: :cool:

[dissention]

And if you ask them about Vietnam? Will they remember the other mob, or will they tell you it was 60 000?

People are so hilariously "patriotic" these days that they'd probably try to convince me that we won Vietnam.

[strandinthewind]

People are so hilariously "patriotic" these days that they'd probably try to convince me that we won Vietnam.


I think that most Americans have forgotten Vietnam or at least and sadly resigned themselves to this "that is just the way the world works" mentality. I know people who were injured or who lost family in Nam that are okay with the lies about going to Iraq. They do not care that Bush flat out lied to get his war. It makes no sense to me. THEN these same people despise Kerry for daring to speak out aginst Nam, when they reasily admit Nam was a mistake. For the life of me, I wil lnever get it.

[cliffdweller]

Wal Mart bans everything. :laugh:

Have you picked up America: The Book? I almost choked when I saw the nude Supreme Court Justices. And the chapter on the media is priceless. "Geraldo Rivera...is an asshole." :lol:


YES!! I got a two-fer: America The Book and Pictures of Famous Naked People. Jon Stewart and Co. are geniuses.

[dissention]

YES!! I got a two-fer: America The Book and Pictures of Famous Naked People. Jon Stewart and Co. are geniuses.

LOVE Naked People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

[cliffdweller]

It's closed but I just have to respond to this Dissention quote from the other thread:



Now that's just wrong. How about you hope Bush doesn an AMAZING job in his second term and he has a catharthis and is greatful that he actually won this election. I realize that's not very like;ly but why can't we HOPE for that, instead of HOPIJNG for things to get worse so people realize their mistake. Why not HOPE Bush does a great job.

"Dream on silly dreamer".... :(

Or how about, "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice....can't get fooled again!" --Dubbya

What an idiot. Bush, not you Hawkeye.

[dissention]

"Dream on silly dreamer".... :(

Or how about, "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice....can't get fooled again!" --Dubbya

What an idiot. Bush, not you Hawkeye.

That quote isn't as good in print, it has to be seen to be believed. :laugh:

[cliffdweller]

Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice....er, uh...won't get fooled again :]

Looks like we're on the same wavelength.

[cliffdweller]

That quote isn't as good in print, it has to be seen to be believed. :laugh:

You're right, but it's so appropos, especially coming from the horse ass's mouth!!

[cliffdweller]

I'm not against hunting for food either. Like I said, I eat meat, so I don't have room to talk. I just can't reconcile the notion of being vehemently pro-life and, yet, having no problems with the taking of the life of another of God's creatures.

Including those who die in unjust wars.... ;)

Where's the moral outrage for that?

[gldstwmn]

Looks like we're on the same wavelength.

Oh yeah. :laugh: :thumbsup:

[Johnny Stew]

On the other side of that, why is it illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg, but OK to destroy a human fetus? At any rate, you obviously see a difference between killing humans and killing animals, and value human life over animal life, yet you can't understand why Christians make the same distinction? That puzzles me.

I admit that I, in my own personal arrogance, place the importance of human lives a little higher than that of animals. That's not to say that I would EVER intentionally harm an animal. Hell, I'm the guy who crawls around the floor with a plastic cup to catch spiders (or crickets, etc.), and then releases them outside. And that's an insect... a lifeform considered to be even lower than that of an animal.
But, admittedly, I eat the meat of animals already killed by someone else... though I couldn't kill said animal myself. It's a matter of justification, I admit. But I own up to it, and I admit the inherent hypocrisy of it.

And, while I'm vehemently against cruelty to animals, I understand the importance of studying medical procedures on animals that have characteristics similar to our own. As long as it's done humanely, I can understand the practice.
I'm not going to lie and say that if a medical procedure tested on an animal saved the life of someone I love, that I wouldn't be very grateful.

My problem is with people who scream, "life is precious! abortion is murder!," while advocating the killing of God's creatures. It's a life. Created by God. Should it not be respected? We ALL have blood on our hands, if you really sit down and think about it.

(I also have a problem with people who, in the comfort of their warm homes, decide that it's THEIR business whether or not a woman has an abortion. Every single person who condemns abortion better get up off their asses and start adopting the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of children who are growing up without parents, without family, and without a home to call their own.
Or how about the children who have parents, but are neglected and/or abused because they weren't wanted? What are the Pro-Lifers doing to help THOSE lives? Or does it not matter what kind of quality of life a child has, so long as he's allowed to be born?)

The difference between death penalty and abortion is one of innocence. If one truly believes life begins at conception, which I recognize not all people do, wouldn't you at least in theory agree it is more heinous to kill a baby than a murderer, and see the difference between the two? Put yourself in the shoes of one who believes life begins at conception and I think you'll understand the distinction we make, even if you disagree.

I understand the idea behind the distinction just fine, I just don't understand why it's made.
A life is a life is a life. By executing someone, we are putting ourselves above God.
I thought the bible was quite clear on the fact that HE is supposed to decide when and where we die.
Isn't that the whole reason behind the furor over assisted suicide? That it should be outlawed because we're "playing God"?
I guess if you have inoperable cancer, and your fate is to live in agony for who knows how long, and you have nothing left to hope for but your own swift death, just murder someone and THEN the Republican party will gladly end your life.

By the same token, it's considered immoral to create life through cloning, because, again, it's "playing God."
Well, I'm sorry, but taking the life of another human being is "playing God," too. Whether they're "innocent" or not.

(Oh, and for the record, according to the idea that we're all born sinners... "original sin," and all that... then I guess none of us, even children, are totally "innocent" if you're going to take the Bible completely to heart.)


I believe the war had good results. War is sometimes necessary. There are pacifist Christians, and I understand their moral objection, but as I said in an earlier posts, I do not classify war as murder.

My problem with the war in Iraq lies first with the pretenses under which it was started.
The "War On Terrorism" I understood. The feeling that we needed to disrupt and dismantle the al Qaeda, and take out Osama Bin Laden, were things that I understood and agreed with.

But Osama is running free, the al Qaeda is as strong as ever (and recruiting millions more to fill their ranks, thanks to our inept handling of the situation in Afghanistan), and the only dictator we've captured is someone who had absolutely no connections to the whole reason we spear-headed the "War On Terrorism" in the first place.

Can you not appreciate the anger many of us feel over the fact that we have lost 1,200+ American lives, in a country attacked under false pretenses by the decree of George W. Bush, while we have not yet even captured the mastermind behind the terrorism that cost yet another 1,200+ American lives?

And let's not forget that he dragged other allied countries into this mess with us, costing the loss of countless more lives.

AND, to top it off, our president lambasted and threatened any country that disagreed with him. (By "threatened," I'm not referring to a potential act of violence, but with the threat of denying trade, aid, etc.)

I realize you don't believe this, but the Bible is considered by Christians to be divinely inspired. That's why we can overlook that.

I believe it. I was raised Catholic, and am surrounded by deeply Catholic people, so I know exactly how the bible is viewed.

It just seems very, very odd to me that, people who claim to feel the way they do, and act the way they do, because it's "what the Bible says," can find so many ways to justify all the things in the Bible that they conveniently overlook.

You mentioned that some of the older laws in the Bible were practical in an age rampant with disease, which, to me, implies that progress dictates that portions of the Bible have become archaic.

So, if something is no longer practical, we can decide arbitrarily to no longer follow it... even though it still "says it in the Bible"?
If so, then why the stubborn need to hold onto other "laws" attributed to the Bible, if they, too, have become archaic?

Have we not progressed from an age in which women were considered subserviant to men, and a woman's sole duty in life was to honor her husband and keep him happy?

Why must the progression stop there?

By the way, I wasn't at all clear when I brought up "human sacrifices." Sacrifices made to God are definitely condemned.
However, I want to point out that in Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 1 through 5, it, quite ironically, calls for the genocide of religious minorities (a "religous minority" being any faith other than Christianity):

"If there arise among you a prophet, ... saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them...And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death...So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee...."

And in Psalms, chapter 79, verse 6:

"Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

There are plenty of other examples throughout the Bible of how to best handle the unbelievers (ie: heathens), and none of them mention love and compassion (or even the Sixth Commandment).
So, basically the Bible (specifically the men who wrote the bible) is promoting the murder of those who don't believe in God/Yahweh.

It's how the Crusades were justified after all.

I hope that helps you to understand to some degree why I do not consider myself a gleeful hypocrite, although it may not change your judgment on the matter.

I understand the language with which the various things I've mentioned are justified, I just don't understand the inability to see why I have a problem with people who have obviously decided which passages of the Bible THEY can ignore without fear of retribution, as they tell me which passages of the Bible I must follow lest I be condemned to hell (and, prior to that, justifiably murdered for having not followed them).

[dissention]

Johnny, when are you finally gonna come to your senses and move to MA? :laugh: :wavey:

(Read that article I posted! It might lift your spirits...)

[amber]

On the other side of that, why is it illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg, but OK to destroy a human fetus? At any rate, you obviously see a difference between killing humans and killing animals, and value human life over animal life, yet you can't understand why Christians make the same distinction? That puzzles me.


Just for the record, I don't. In fact, humans aren't endangered, and we use the most resources and make the most heinous chemical pollutions. I really, really, don't "agree" with valuing human life over animals. Of course i also understand that each species tries to further itself, so...of course most people will value human life over others.

[amber]

I admit that I, in my own personal arrogance, place the importance of human lives a little higher than that of animals. That's not to say that I would EVER intentionally harm an animal. Hell, I'm the guy who crawls around the floor with a plastic cup to catch spiders (or crickets, etc.), and then releases them outside. And that's an insect... a lifeform considered to be even lower than that of an animal.
But, admittedly, I eat the meat of animals already killed by someone else... though I couldn't kill said animal myself. It's a matter of justification, I admit. But I own up to it, and I admit the inherent hypocrisy of it.

And, while I'm vehemently against cruelty to animals, I understand the importance of studying medical procedures on animals that have characteristics similar to our own. As long as it's done humanely, I can understand the practice.
I'm not going to lie and say that if a medical procedure tested on an animal saved the life of someone I love, that I wouldn't be very grateful.

My problem is with people who scream, "life is precious! abortion is murder!," while advocating the killing of God's creatures. It's a life. Created by God. Should it not be respected? We ALL have blood on our hands, if you really sit down and think about it.

(I also have a problem with people who, in the comfort of their warm homes, decide that it's THEIR business whether or not a woman has an abortion. Every single person who condemns abortion better get up off their asses and start adopting the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of children who are growing up without parents, without family, and without a home to call their own.
Or how about the children who have parents, but are neglected and/or abused because they weren't wanted? What are the Pro-Lifers doing to help THOSE lives? Or does it not matter what kind of quality of life a child has, so long as he's allowed to be born?)



I understand the idea behind the distinction just fine, I just don't understand why it's made.
A life is a life is a life. By executing someone, we are putting ourselves above God.
I thought the bible was quite clear on the fact that HE is supposed to decide when and where we die.
Isn't that the whole reason behind the furor over assisted suicide? That it should be outlawed because we're "playing God"?
I guess if you have inoperable cancer, and your fate is to live in agony for who knows how long, and you have nothing left to hope for but your own swift death, just murder someone and THEN the Republican party will gladly end your life.

By the same token, it's considered immoral to create life through cloning, because, again, it's "playing God."
Well, I'm sorry, but taking the life of another human being is "playing God," too. Whether they're "innocent" or not.

(Oh, and for the record, according to the idea that we're all born sinners... "original sin," and all that... then I guess none of us, even children, are totally "innocent" if you're going to take the Bible completely to heart.)




My problem with the war in Iraq lies first with the pretenses under which it was started.
The "War On Terrorism" I understood. The feeling that we needed to disrupt and dismantle the al Qaeda, and take out Osama Bin Laden, were things that I understood and agreed with.

But Osama is running free, the al Qaeda is as strong as ever (and recruiting millions more to fill their ranks, thanks to our inept handling of the situation in Afghanistan), and the only dictator we've captured is someone who had absolutely no connections to the whole reason we spear-headed the "War On Terrorism" in the first place.

Can you not appreciate the anger many of us feel over the fact that we have lost 1,200+ American lives, in a country attacked under false pretenses by the decree of George W. Bush, while we have not yet even captured the mastermind behind the terrorism that cost yet another 1,200+ American lives?

And let's not forget that he dragged other allied countries into this mess with us, costing the loss of countless more lives.

AND, to top it off, our president lambasted and threatened any country that disagreed with him. (By "threatened," I'm not referring to a potential act of violence, but with the threat of denying trade, aid, etc.)



I believe it. I was raised Catholic, and am surrounded by deeply Catholic people, so I know exactly how the bible is viewed.

It just seems very, very odd to me that, people who claim to feel the way they do, and act the way they do, because it's "what the Bible says," can find so many ways to justify all the things in the Bible that they conveniently overlook.

You mentioned that some of the older laws in the Bible were practical in an age rampant with disease, which, to me, implies that progress dictates that portions of the Bible have become archaic.

So, if something is no longer practical, we can decide arbitrarily to no longer follow it... even though it still "says it in the Bible"?
If so, then why the stubborn need to hold onto other "laws" attributed to the Bible, if they, too, have become archaic?

Have we not progressed from an age in which women were considered subserviant to men, and a woman's sole duty in life was to honor her husband and keep him happy?

Why must the progression stop there?

By the way, I wasn't at all clear when I brought up "human sacrifices." Sacrifices made to God are definitely condemned.
However, I want to point out that in Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 1 through 5, it, quite ironically, calls for the genocide of religious minorities (a "religous minority" being any faith other than Christianity):

"If there arise among you a prophet, ... saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them...And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death...So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee...."

And in Psalms, chapter 79, verse 6:

"Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

There are plenty of other examples throughout the Bible of how to best handle the unbelievers (ie: heathens), and none of them mention love and compassion (or even the Sixth Commandment).
So, basically the Bible (specifically the men who wrote the bible) is promoting the murder of those who don't believe in God/Yahweh.

It's how the Crusades were justified after all.



I understand the language with which the various things I've mentioned are justified, I just don't understand the inability to see why I have a problem with people who have obviously decided which passages of the Bible THEY can ignore without fear of retribution, as they tell me which passages of the Bible I must follow lest I be condemned to hell (and, prior to that, justifiably murdered for having not followed them).

Yep. :thumbsup:

[sodascouts]

PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE SINGLE AND AVAILABLE! :nod: :laugh: ;)

~Alex

lol Alex! Give me a call if you ever come to Indiana. ;)

And thanks for the compliment, Jason! You're quite a handsome man yourself. And I have the pictures to prove it, lol.

[strandinthewind]

lol Alex! Give me a call if you ever come to Indiana. ;)

And thanks for the compliment, Jason! You're quite a handsome man yourself. And I have the pictures to prove it, lol.


Why thank you!!!! BTW - You will be taken to an undisclosed Four Seasons ot Ritz Carlton if you release those pics!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

I cannot believe you and Alex did not meet in Madison??????

[sodascouts]

A general reply to all those who responded to my statements:

I see where you guys are coming from and you all make good points. I think most people here have good hearts and are well-intentioned, even the ones who now seem to be the most angry, mean-spirited, and bitter due to the recent election. I hope that we can look beyond political views to respectfully disagree, and remember to define people on a human level rather than by what they register as.

[sodascouts]

Why thank you!!!! BTW - You will be taken to an undisclosed Four Seasons ot Ritz Carlton if you release those pics!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

I cannot believe you and Alex did not meet in Madison??????

We did - for about five seconds! I did get a hug out of him! lol

[chiliD]

A general reply to all those who responded to my statements:

I see where you guys are coming from and you all make good points. I think most people here have good hearts and are well-intentioned, even the ones who now seem to be the most angry, mean-spirited, and bitter due to the recent election. I hope that we can look beyond political views to respectfully disagree, and remember to define people on a human level rather than by what they register as.


Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the present administration is willing to do that. But, I am.

[SuzeQuze]

MA rules! It's the best blue state there is! IMHO :D

Johnny, when are you finally gonna come to your senses and move to MA? :laugh: :wavey:

(Read that article I posted! It might lift your spirits...)

[dissention]

MA rules! It's the best blue state there is! IMHO :D

Bet your ass! :wavey: The MOST progressive state in the union. :D

[jadegypsy]

Hey Johnny Stew :wavey:

I totally agree with most of what you said, it's cool you can be so well versed in the bible and yet actually see some of the "double standered" in it as well...You remind me a bit of one of my college friends who shocked me by telling me she was a Catholic since she was so liberal (pro-choice, pro stem cell...)

[amber]

Bet your ass! :wavey: The MOST progressive state in the union. :D
:thumbsup:
but after our discussion months ago, i did read up on your racism problem, and it's fairly accute :distress: For a blue state, i mean... :cool:

[dissention]

:thumbsup:
but after our discussion months ago, i did read up on your racism problem, and it's fairly accute :distress: For a blue state, i mean... :cool:

Yeah, when you get into areas like Boxford, but those are the same cities and towns that vote for Dimson. :shrug: Otherwise, I fail to see it.

[amber]

Yeah, when you get into areas like Boxford, but those are the same cities and towns that vote for Dimson. :shrug: Otherwise, I fail to see it.
One article i read was specifically about Boston...but i'll get back to you. It was a while ago. And i'm glad you fail to see it. :thumbsup:

[amber]

:thumbsup: Amber...That signature is awesome! Are they yours?!

-Justin
Yep. Thanks! The black n white one is good and perfect, the siamese is beastly, loud, and pugnacious. Now i wish i'd named them yin and yang, or something like that, but...ha, i chose them cause they opposite/match. just kidding! but they do... :p

[strandinthewind]

I thought this before, during, and after the election - I truly think it was the mere thought of gay marriage much less abortion that sent the pastors, ministers, and rabbis a runnin' to W for support. I mean the WH sent or had sent letters to Churches and other places of worship across the land urging them to preach from the pulpit that W was the person who would stop the dirty sinful, but tolerated :rolleyes: , homosexual and the heinous abortionist - both of which are responsible for God ignoring America and sending us into this recession. While I am sure not all said it that way, I submit it was a variation of that line of thinking :shrug: It also is a clear violation of the tax exempt status of houses of worship to do this and the fax to them was also a violation. Moreover, far religious right, with the clear support of the WH, turned the argument from no tax dollars to support one religion into "the liberals are trying to tell you you cannot worship God" - which was just sick of them IMO - but the churches bought it and preached it hook line and sinker :shrug: This is why people are livid at the religious far right and, sadly, the "good" people of faith are caught up in that general thought.

Anyway, from the NYTimes:

November 5, 2004
FAITH GROUPS
Bush Benefits From Efforts to Build a Coalition of the Faithful
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
and WILLIAM YARDLEY

f a White House photographer with a keen eye for American religious trends were documenting President Bush's moves the past four years, here are some snapshots that would show up in a retrospective album:

The president framed by a nun and a cardinal on a visit to an urban Roman Catholic school; the president screening a Holocaust film in the White House one evening with a small group of Jewish leaders he had invited over; the president bowing his head before addressing an evangelical congregation.

For the past four years, Mr. Bush has been deliberately assembling the building blocks of a formidable faith coalition. Pastor by pastor, rabbi by rabbi, and often face to face, Mr. Bush has built relationships with a diverse range of religious leaders.

The payoff came on Tuesday. For all the credit claimed by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush owes his victory to a formula that includes conservative Catholics, mainline Protestants, Hispanics, Jews and Mormons.

The president's strategists set out to improve his showing among not just evangelicals, but also Catholics, Jews, Hispanics and African-Americans by appealing to the social conservatives in each of those groups who felt alienated and disrespected by a popular culture that in their minds trivializes religion. In all of those groups, he won more of them over than he did four years ago, although the increase among African-Americans was negligible.

The pivotal group may have been Catholics, who make up 27 percent of voters. According to surveys of voters conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the president improved his showing by five percentage points among Catholics, from 47 percent in the 2000 election to 52 percent this year. In Ohio, where the Bush campaign sent thousands of field workers to Catholic churches, the margin was 55 percent to 43 percent for Senator John Kerry.

"In both Ohio and Florida, the Catholic vote helped carry the president across the finish line," said Leonard Leo, a Catholic adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Mr. Kerry, the first Catholic on a major party ticket since 1960, fared worse among Catholics than Al Gore did in 2000, Mr. Leo pointed out. "It's a pretty big sea change,'' he said. "In 2004, you have a Catholic running on a Democratic ticket, and he garners less Catholic support than the president, who is a Methodist. And this in the middle of a war where some Catholics are not with the president."

The president also did better among Hispanic voters: from 35 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2004. There are more Hispanic voters now than there were four years ago (going from 6 to 8 percent of the electorate), and many of them are either Catholic or evangelical. Among Hispanic evangelicals, 60 percent voted for the president; among Hispanic Catholics it was 39 percent (a lesser share than among Catholics as a whole).

The Jewish vote is small - 3 percent of the electorate. But after focusing attention on Jews in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Missouri and, when it looked competitive, New Jersey, the president increased his share of the Jewish vote from 19 percent in 2000 to 25 percent this year. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, found that more than two-thirds of Orthodox Jews voted for the president.

"What this suggests is that the Bush coalition wasn't just evangelicals," said John C. Green, a professor of political science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "It included a much larger group of more traditional religious people, many of them outside of the evangelical tradition. What they have in common is that all of these groups tend to hold traditional views on sexual behavior."

Voters who identified themselves as white born-again or evangelical Christians made up 23 percent of voters this year. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president - clearly an increase over the 2000 election (but it is unclear by how much, since the question used to identify evangelicals in surveys of voters leaving the polls was asked differently four years ago, making a direct comparison impossible). Professor Green said his polling showed an increase in the evangelical vote for President Bush from 71 percent in 2000 to 76 percent this year.

African-Americans were the only constituency that did not respond in great numbers to the Bush campaign's overtures, said Tony Carnes, a sociologist at Columbia University who polls religious leaders.

He and several black ministers said in interviews that while Republicans were making inroads with appeals to biblical teaching on gay marriage and abortion, it was a hard sell within this traditionally Democratic voting bloc. "The pew is not yet voting Republican; it's the church leaders," he said.

Four years ago, said Mike Hightower, chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in six northeast Florida counties, some religious conservatives may have been wary of Mr. Bush. Some may have been put off by news late in the 2000 campaign that he had once been arrested for drunken driving.

"In these four years, they have come to understand that this is a man of great, deep faith, and on that they all agree," Mr. Hightower said. "They saw a man who didn't just talk about being a religious person but lives it out."

He noted that when Republicans in Jacksonville first viewed a commercial showing a girl who said the president comforted her after she lost a parent on Sept. 11, "You will not believe the men and women who wept in my office. That to me is one of the high moments of the campaign."

Outside the sprawling, multiblock downtown complex that is the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, a two-word chorus emerged from people on their way to the 6:30 worship service on Wednesday evening.

"Moral values."

Terry Lee, 52, an insurance salesman, said it. So did Reecia Harrell, a "50-something" kindergarten teacher. Same for Laura Hurse, a 20-year-old nursing student.

All white, all Republican, all Bush supporters, each offered the answer immediately when asked what had driven their vote for the president. And each cited the president's positions on a trinity of social issues - abortion, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.

But Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, warned against placing too much emphasis on "values voters.''

He noted that the percentages of voters who said they attended church once a week or opposed abortion were no greater than four years ago. In addition, a surprising 60 percent of voters said they favored some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples, with 25 percent favoring marriage rights, and 35 percent favoring civil unions. Thirty-seven percent told pollsters that same-sex couples should not be granted any form of legal recognition.

Mr. Kohut also questioned whether the anti-gay-marriage initiatives that were on the ballot in 11 states helped galvanize conservative religious voters to vote for the president. After all, he said, Mr. Kerry won both Michigan and Oregon, two swing states where gay marriage propositions were on the ballot.

"After reading the newspapers this morning, we're getting a little carried away with the cultural and religious interpretation of this election," Mr. Kohut said. "It was a vote to some extent on values, but it was also a vote on John Kerry and how the American public felt about the way President Bush handled the war on terrorism."

Further, the religious alignment could splinter over particular policy issues, however. On abortion and stem cell research, evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics are opposed, while Orthodox Jews are not.

"There are differences,'' said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. "It is not just that we are evangelicals who read our Bible right to left. But what is in common is an appreciation for the role that religious faith plays in a person's life and in the life of a community.''


Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting for this article.

[amber]

- both of which are responsible for God ignoring America and sending us into this recession.
Not to ignore the rest of your giant, giant post, but from my study of history and econ, Repub boom/trickle down econ invariably leads to a bust...sorry if it's off topic, but it really goads me that people don't understand econ cycles, what causes them, etc. Although, actually, i don't believe Clinton was responsible, really, for the econ boom. I think it was tech...
anyways, sorry to interrupt... :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Not to ignore the rest of your giant, giant, post, but from my study of history and econ, Repub boom/trickle down econ invariably leads to a bust...sorry if it's off topic, but it really goads me that people don't understand econ cycles, what causes them, etc. Although, actually, i don't believe Clinton was responsible, really, for the econ boom. I think it was tech...
anyways, sorry to interrupt... :wavey:

I think you are correct in that the economy is cyclical no matter who is in charge. But, there are things the govt. can do. For example, lowering interest rates to almost zero kept us out of a depression because the housing and commercial building market (raw materials, labor, mortgage brokers, and peripheral suppliers) subsequently boomed from the dirt cheap money and it and it alone sustained the economy for awhile and is still a boon. I, along with Alan Greenspan, think tax cuts can provide an immediate stimulus, but they must be met with fiscal responsisbility, which W does not have and Greenspan has repeatedly admonished this behavior. If not, they do not work in the long term, which I and Greenspan believe is what happened in the last two years. Finally, the private sector drives the economy, not govt. jobs. The tech industry is an excellent example of this. But, by the same token, a lapse of govt. regulation can lead to the unchecked fraud we saw at the end of the Clinton era, which lead to the immediate and direct loss of billions if not trillions of dollars (Enron, MCI, etc.) and many more trillions in peripheral economies like the sandwhich shops in the Enron and other buildings, the people on the Enron payroll had to stop patronizing other businesses because they no longer had a paycheck to sustain that patronage, etc. (this BTW is a form of the trickle down theory - trickle down is VERY important, but is not the be all and end all - it is just one part of the process) Also, the tech boom was unique in that a whole new mega market (the internet and PC's) had been created out of nothing. I am unsure we will see that happen again - perhaps in the vitural reality sector and the "your cell phone is your t.v. , radio, computer, etc." market they say is coming. I mean the PC market is okay, but there are not that many households in a recession that will spend another $1,000 to upgrade - they may spend it out of necessity (broken computer, etc.) - but not just because MS has a cool new $300 operating system.

So, I think they both go hand in hand. But, this debate has been going on for years and years :laugh:

[amber]

I think you are correct in that the economy is cyclical no matter who is in charge. But, there are things the govt. can do. For example, lowering interest rates to almost zero kept us out of a depression because the housing and commercial building market (raw materials, labor, mortgage brokers, and peripheral suppliers) subsequently boomed from the dirt cheap money and it and it alone sustained the economy for awhile and is still a boon. I, along with Alan Greenspan, think tax cuts can provide an immediate stimulus, but they must be met with fiscal responsisbility, which W does not have and Greenspan has repeatedly admonished this behavior. If not, they do not work in the long term, which I and Greenspan believe is what happened in the last two years. Finally, the private sector drives the economy, not govt. jobs. The tech industry is an excellent example of this. But, by the same token, a lapse of govt. regulation can lead to the unchecked fraud we saw at the end of the Clinton era, which lead to the immediate and direct loss of billions if not trillions of dollars (Enron, MCI, etc.) and many more trillions in peripheral economies like the sandwhich shops in the Enron and other buildings, the people on the Enron payroll had to stop patronizing other businesses because they no longer had a paycheck to sustain that patronage, etc. (this BTW is a form of the trickle down theory - trickle down is VERY important, but is not the be all and end all - it is just one part of the process)

So, I think they both go hand in hand. But, this debate has been going on for years and years :laugh:
Agree. But, I think I think that trickle down is more harmful than you do..? It's pretty complex, though, and i think you spoke to that. But, studying econ can be strange, judging from the super repub, and conversely super socialist professors i have had on the subject...but i think it is so important to study the history, and sociology of it.
Thanks, Strandie! :wavey:

[GateandGarden]

Yep. Thanks! The black n white one is good and perfect, the siamese is beastly, loud, and pugnacious. Now i wish i'd named them yin and yang, or something like that, but...ha, i chose them cause they opposite/match. just kidding! but they do... :pThey are adorable, Amber.

Hillary

[amber]

They are adorable, Amber.

Hillary
aww, thanks. Unfortunately i recently "saved" a redheaded stepchild :laugh: (orange cat)...I swear, it's throwing my decor off! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I thought this was interesting, particularly the stats he cites.
_________________________________________________________

November 6, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

very election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

from www.nytimes.com

[strandinthewind]

This one offers insight as well, although I do not believe everything he says
________________________________________________________

November 6, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Time to Get Religion
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

f Democrats want to know how to win again, they have a model. It's the British Labor Party.

When I studied in England in the early 1980's, the British Labor Party seemed as quaint and eccentric as Oxford itself, where we wore gowns for exams and some dons addressed the rare female student as "sir." Labor was caught in its own echo chamber of militant unions and anti-American activists, and it so repulsed voters that it seemed it might wither away entirely.

Then Tony Blair and another M.P., Gordon Brown, dragged the party away from socialism, unions, nuclear disarmament and anti-Americanism. Together they created "New Labor," which aimed for the center and aggressively courted Middle Britain instead of trying to scare it. The result is that since 1997, Mr. Blair and Labor have utterly dominated Britain.

The Democrats need a similar rebranding. But the risk is that the party will blame others for its failures - or, worse, blame the American people for their stupidity (as London's Daily Mirror screamed in a Page 1 headline this week: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?").

As moderates from the heartland, like Tom Daschle, are picked off by the Republicans, the party's image risks being defined even more by bicoastal, tree-hugging, gun-banning, French-speaking, Bordeau-sipping, Times-toting liberals, whose solution is to veer left and galvanize the base. But firing up the base means turning off swing voters. Gov. Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican, told me that each time Michael Moore spoke up for John Kerry, Mr. Kerry's support in Nebraska took a dive.

Mobilizing the base would mean nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 and losing yet again. (Mrs. Clinton has actually undertaken just the kind of makeover that I'm talking about: in the Senate, she's been cooperative, mellow and moderate, winning over upstate New Yorkers. She could do the same in the heartland ... if she had 50 years.)

So Democrats need to give a more prominent voice to Middle American, wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting centrists. (They can tote The Times, too, in a plain brown wrapper.) For a nominee who could lead the Democrats to victory, think of John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh, or anyone who knows the difference between straw and hay.

I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector.

There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers.

So what do the Democrats need to do? Here are four suggestions:

• Don't be afraid of religion. Offer government support for faith-based programs to aid the homeless, prisoners and AIDS victims. And argue theology with Republicans: there's much more biblical ammunition to support liberals than conservatives.

• Pick battles of substance, not symbolism. The battle over Georgia's Confederate flag cost Roy Barnes his governorship and perhaps Max Cleland his Senate seat, but didn't help one working mother or jobless worker. It was a gift to Republicans.

• Accept that today, gun control is a nonstarter. Instead of trying to curb guns, try to reduce gun deaths through better rules on licensing and storage, and on safety devices like trigger locks.

• Hold your nose and work with President Bush as much as you can because it's lethal to be portrayed as obstructionists. Sure, block another Clarence Thomas, but here's a rule of thumb: if an otherwise qualified Supreme Court nominee would turn the clock back 10 years, approve; back 25 years, vote no; back a half-century, filibuster.

"The first thing we have to do is shake the image of us as the obstructionist party," notes Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who manages to thrive as a Democrat in the red sea. He says Democrats must show a willingness to compromise, to get things done, to defer to local sensibilities. "We have to show the American people," he says, "that Democrats aren't going to take away your guns, aren't going to take away your flags."

Rethinking the Democratic Party will be wrenching. But just ask Tony Blair - it's not as wrenching as sliding into irrelevance.

from www.nytimes.com

[strandinthewind]

Finally, Lord love her - she's a half a bubble off :laugh: - but she rings true this time IMO:
______________________________________________________

MY OPINION

Bible verses used as 'Bible versus'

Published on: 11/05/04


"The Old Testament did sanction slavery. God said, 'Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you. . . . And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children. . . .' "

— "Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution,"

Rev. Richard Fuller, 1847


Last Tuesday, there was at least one thing about which blue states and red states, black Americans and white Americans, Northerners and Southerners could agree: Gays and lesbians should be denied the right to full citizenship. Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex unions appeared on the ballot in 11 states and passed easily — from Michigan, Ohio and Oregon to Georgia, Mississippi and Arkansas.

It was a triumph for bigotry based on the Bible. From conservative pulpits around the country, pastors had implored their flocks to go to the polls and vote against the "abomination" of homosexuality. They claimed that preventing gays from getting married would shore up the institution among heterosexuals — though it is not clear how.

It was also a triumph for the Machiavellian madness of Karl Rove. He understood only too well that many Americans were willing to ignore a sputtering economy, a profoundly flawed war and soaring health care costs for the opportunity to enforce discrimination against a despised minority. Rove also knew that calling out the legions of ultraconservative Christians who abhor equal rights for gays would ensure that President Bush won not only the Electoral College but also the popular vote.

And they weren't just white voters. Homophobia oozes across lines of color, linking black America with white in a common contempt masquerading as morality. It is deeply disappointing to see black churchgoers enthusiastically wield the Bible as a bludgeon against another group, since Scripture was also used against us, as a justification for slavery, in the 19th century.


"In Genesis . . . soon after the flood Ham's descendants were doomed by the Almighty to a state of slavery . . . and . . . the descendants of Shem and Japheth . . . were ordained to be their masters."

— "Slavery: Its Origin, Nature and History,"

Rev. Thornton Stringfellow, 1861


Indeed, black Christians have become more hostile toward gays over the last decade or so. While 65 percent of black Protestants believed that gays should enjoy equal rights in 1996, that view was held by only 40 percent this year, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Among most other religious groups surveyed, including white evangelical Protestants, support for gay rights increased (if only marginally) over the same period.

Ultraconservative black Christians helped make the difference for President Bush in the key state of Ohio. Bush nearly doubled his support among black Ohioans, from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent on Tuesday, according to senior analyst David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington think tank specializing in issues of interest to black Americans. That increase — about 50,000 voters — came from black Christian conservatives, he added.


"It is vain to look to Christ or any of his Apostles to justify [abolition]. On the contrary . . . they exhort 'all servants under the yoke' to 'count their masters as worthy of all honor.' . . . St. Paul actually apprehended a runaway slave and sent him to his master!"

— The Pro-Slavery Argument, Hammond's Letters on Slavery,

(Former S.C. Gov.) J.H. Hammond, 1853


When American Baptists split over the bondage of black men and women in the 1840s, the Southern brethren, who backed slavery, formed the Southern Baptist Convention. Many of its members continued to resist equal rights for black Americans through the 1960s.

At their Atlanta meeting in 1995 — belatedly recognizing the error of their ways — the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention issued a broad apology for the church's support of slavery. The founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were "good, godly, Bible-believing persons, but they were not infallible," the Rev. Charles T. Carter said at the time.

Some 50 to 100 years from now, no doubt, some Christian churches will find themselves apologizing for their contemptuous treatment of gays and lesbians, many of whom are fellow Christians. For now, however, the conservative Christian church — black and white — has forsaken two of Christ's most profound injunctions:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

— Matthew, 22:39

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

— Matthew, 7:1

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/110704.html

[greatdarkwing]

We did - for about five seconds! I did get a hug out of him! lol
I do give the best hugs...not to brag, LOL.

It was quite funny that Jason posted about your boots, cause when I met you, you were complaining about them! LOL!

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

I do give the best hugs...not to brag, LOL.

It was quite funny that Jason posted about your boots, cause when I met you, you were complaining about them! LOL!

~Alex


Boots - politics - women

there is a diff? :shrug:

:cool:

:wavey: Nancy

[Vianna]

"think W and the R party are trying to create a theocracy and here is how I support that:

1. They want to use public funds to place Christian (and they only fight for th Christian ones mind you) symbols in public places. They do not mind and in fact want to turn public buildings into places of worship.

2. They want everyone to live by Christian ideals. For example, no sex (hetero or homo sexual) out of wedlock.

3. They want to use public funds to use in Christian schools and for Christian Charities. I seriously doubt if the Wiccans applied for these same funds, they would get them.

4. I see the day to day activity of many Christians and they are exclusive. I cannot tell you how many people I heard, bumperstickers I read, etc. all saying something to the effect of W will make America safe for Jesus again. I fully realize this is not all Christians, but I submit it is over 50%.

My comment about the church coffers and abortion was born from my experience with churches here and things like the 700 club. Like it or not, they represent the majority of Christians. And - they preach this to fill their coffers. As an example, Pat Robertson routinely begs for money while preaching against abortion - in fact, he has had telethons on the subject. So, that is how arrived at, not jumped to as you asserted, that conclusion. If you can prove me wrong, I am all ears."


Well said, David. I agree.

[strandinthewind]

I think I said that :laugh: But, David may certainly take credit if he so desires because he often is better spoken than I :cool: