At least I will be on the other side of the planet from you when your vale of tears start.
Posted By: I have checked the facts on 2008-10-25
In Reply to: Sorry, but your facts are one-sided whereas - Backwards typist
NM
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Take your tears somewhere else...(sm)
It's a political discussion board, and yeah, it gets messy -- hence, the warning at the top of the board. I come here for political discussion, not drama. Take a look at her prolonged farewell address above. It speaks volumes. She is absolutely correct in saying she has supported both sides and in the middle. That's not a political discussion, that's a beauty pageant contest. I'm about sick and tired of her "flavor of the day politics" and calling me out personally about "bashing" and then turns around and does the exact same thing, or worse.
But hey, this isn't bashing, "I am just talking about a specific person whom I personally think is over the top."
Who was crying tears?
You are the most ridiculous person on here. It cracks me up when you even try to make a point. I really just feel sorry for you. You are so determined to SHOVE your views in others face and so desperate sounding all the time. Everyday you try so hard to show those Republicans where they went wrong. This isn't a debate for you, this is some kind of life mission and it is just sad that this is all you have. We are just sick of your frenzied wild posts that aren't well thought out. Knock if off. You are ruining what should be a place to discuss topics with your GET THE REPUBLICANS midlife crisis you are having.
Your post has me in tears!
You sound like a wonderful stepmom - he's very lucky to have you in his life.
Tears of joy for hope and change...
will soon be tears of anger and frustration when you come to realize that O is not your Messiah, your hope or your future. He is just a man who has taken on much more than he realizes. He will be tested and will fail due to his lack of experience and courage. He is just a shill for the Clintons, who apparently he owes quite a lot to seeing how he is recycling Clinton cabinet members and friends. So much for hope and change; you can't pay your bills or build back your 401(k) on either one. The money wasted on such an elaborate inauguration is beyond me when the economy is in such turmoil. I am going to sit back and watch as it all slowly implodes and the sheeple finally see the wolf who is leading them right where he wants them, starry-eyed, ignorant and dumbed down.
Baltimore: Crowds shed tears of joy.
Speaks for itself.
Baltimore: Crowds shed tears of joy.
Speaks for itself.
Barrrrrack baby! Tears of happiness in my eyes!
I'm so happy that Barack Obama won Iowa that I just twirled circles in my living room like a child! I know there are no guarantees, but I just have such a hopeful feeling right now and I'm enjoying that feeling! For months I have been telling anyone who would listen why I am such a strong supporter of Obama's.
What do you all think about Huckabee winning Iowa? I confess that I don't know much about him (or any of the Republican hopefuls), but you can bet I'll be researching him now that he seems to be the front runner, although honestly I believe chances are VERY slim of a Republican candidate winning the next presidential election!
What planet do you guys come from?
You actually think people by this stuff as genuine. Again, do you actually think through what you state, or do you state it for the shock effect. I assume it's the latter.
We can and do affect this planet.
While I agree that we can't exactly know how much we have to do with changing cycles on the planet, there is simply NO doubt that we have had a profound impact upon it. Even when I was a kid there were springs we could drink from and rivers we could swim in without fear of chemical burns. The fields were loaded with turtles and other creatures, every pond and creek was alive wtih frogs and tadpoles and fish. Ask your grandparents what they remember the countryside being like before the supreme arrogance of corporate policy poisoned every water source we have. There was a time that tuna fish didn't have mercury in it. On and on. Don't dismiss the concern many have over the impact we DO have on our planet as arrogance - we are certainly having a BAD BAD impact globally.
And true, not just us. However, America along with other industrialized nations and bankers is certainly complicit in the globalization movement (i.e., move into other lands, usurp the resouces from the native people, give them toxic sludge for their crops as a sort of side joke, suck out all their groundwater, make the corporations richer). We certainly don't stand against it politically or financially.
While the planet may survive the sweeping changes its most prolific environment-altering parasites inflict upon it, we probably will not. Just look at Mars if you don't think a planet can die. Regardless of why, it's certainly dead enough. So are we going to wait to be shaken off like pesky fleas - or are we going to make some effort to SUSTAIN our world and keep it in balance rather than continuously insulting it to the point where we DESERVE to be exterminated? Some of us don't have a deep-seated death wish. Some of us don't think money is more important than good living. Some of us are actually fond of this planet. Excuse US for thinking of it that way.
Flying around? What planet are you from?
He got on Airforce One following the protocol for protecting the POTUS. You know, Air Force One, the flying command center of the United States? The VP has a separate protocol and was taken to a separate location. Geeze, maybe you should avail yourself of some information before you post from now on.
He wasn't 'flying around.' Sorry to pop your conspiracy theory bubble, darling, but get your head on straight. And maybe you should educate yourself about the Katrina situation before you open your gob and vomit out the same tired 'bush caused katrina' drivel.
OBAMA IS A WEAKLING. GRAB YOUR ANKLES AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
What planet do you live on?
"When it comes to disease, we have a choice." Just taking the moist obvious, those babies born with fatal anomalies made bad choices? The stillborn infants made bad choices? You must have had a much busier uterus than I did.
Be glad you're not Catholic. Based on your acknowledgement that being judgmental is a sin, you'd be spending a lot of time on your knees in that confessional.
socialism for a shrinking planet
Im not beating around the bush. Im amazed there is a leader who is that compassionate to care for all of his people. I cant remember a time when America had a leader like that. Closest I can think of is when Social Security was created. Socialism is a fair ideology for all the people of a country. Capitalism certainly isnt, that is unless all a person cares about is making as much money as they can and then locking themselves away in a gated community, driving on the outskirts of the ghetto areas of downtown so they dont have to see how the unfortunate ones live. I, on the other hand, care about people. I put caring before money. All Americans should have a well paying job, a chance to go to college, even if you cant afford it, a roof over your head, a full belly at night, medical care. One major thing that eats away at me is knowing some people do not go through life happy because their whole life is a neverending struggle, mostly due to no fault of their own. I see the writing on the wall, too bad the fat cat capitalists who are so greedy and hording that money away dont. As the population grows in the world, supplies and resources will dwindle. Government programs will have to be created to take care of the people whose only fault is they werent born with a silver spoon in their mouth and not born when houses were inexpensive, college was easy to get into and inexpensive, jobs were plentiful and not outsourced, etc. The masses will out-mass the greedy capitalists and then we will see something like what is happening in Venezuela now..Equality for ALL Americans in the basic needs of life and dignity. Sure there are some fat cat capitalists who are truly good people and are helping the unfortunate and I applaud them but from what I have seen, the majority of the super rich, dont give a darn about the working class or working poor or poor. No person should die on the street for lack of housing or only have a minimum wage job so they cant afford to rent or buy. No person should go to bed at night hungry even though they have worked one or two jobs but had to choose between the rent, gas or food. I see where Capitalism can go hand and hand with Socialism and that is what truly is going to happen. America, the richest country on earth, yet we dont have medical care for our citizens, we have homeless in the streets, maternity leave is not paid for, we take the less amount of vacation days than any other industrialized country. When Kruschev visited America for the first time, he asked why did America have homeless. He stated that The Soviet Socialists Republic did not have homeless, they might have a few families living in the same apartment but they werent homeless. How shameful for America. America might have been great a few decades ago but it is leaving much to want for now and it will only get worse with the division of the classes..poor, working poor, middle class, rich and super rich, which is happening now, and the dwindling resources and opportunities. Now, go ahead, call me a raging lunatic. You have your right to your opinion, however, this is my take on today's America and it makes my heart heavy.
what planet did you drop in on......no, all welfare
nm
Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead. 
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
Barney Frank.....what planet did he fall off
Barney Frank wants less govt and state rights when it comes to drugs.... but he wants "regulation" and "more enforcement" when it comes to everything else that takes away MY rights...... what a joke!
Really? Pubs in charge of the purse strings? What planet
...no wonder we're in this mess, and it will only get worse.
What planet R U from that you think Welfare and WIC can even come close truly supporting adequately.
A mother (job training, if you want her to pay taxes back into society, day care, so she can work with a safe place for her chld), a SAFE neighborhood to bring up the child, emotional support, do you even know what clothing and shoes cost, formula, diapers, and if we just keep handing out WElfare, how do we break that "chain" when the child grows and the cycle repeats, the President realizes it takes much, much more than a cheap handout, it takes work programs, work training programs, availabiity of safe, good child care, medical care, nutritional care, educational opportunities.....that was a cold statement without forethought to what it is really like, I have three chldren, my husband and I both work very hard, overtime and all, and it is still unbelievably hard and close!
I was never on SP's side.... s/m
but I think that it was extremely tasteless of this Canadian comedian to post as
French President Sarkozy and interview her for 5 minutes and making fun of her.
Extremely tasteless.
After all she was the running mate of McCain.
I am a democrat.
I don't think that either side... sm
has much room to talk.
I have seen articles, opinions and links posted, apparently by Republicans, about the issues facing Obama, and the first replies are the childish Dems who come on and say "well, it's Bush's fault that he has this or that to deal with" or some other childish remark.
By the same token, I have seen what I believe to be Democrats posting nasty articles and opinions about Sarah Palin and how she is giving interviews, how she obviously doesn't have the sense to be a major political player or whether she gave the clothes back to the party before going back to Alaska.
I'm with BWT. I think the childishness and catiness that I have seen on this board for the last week or so need to end and let's get to discussing the issues at hand. We won't be able to solve a danged one of them, but we can have a civilized adult discussion and we might even learn a thing or two from each other.
Reach across the aisle, folks. 
We are on the same side
I wanted to post and did not want to respond to an Ann fan, so I posted under your reasonable statement.
no just one side
This problem is not just a dem/repub problem. It is a greedy CEO/Wallstreet problem as well. It is a mass amounts of people went out and bought things they couldnt afford and houses they didnt need and couldnt afford problem. Did the gov make them go out and do that? Who made all these people sign their names on these subprime short arm loans that collapsed? It is their fault too. It is also a welfare problem. You know, those people who would rather pop out kids for a job than work for real.
...and just you on the other side.
...but not LAST night.
Get a job.
No one took Eric's side. sm
 But then, you know that. The rest I won't argue with you about. If you use science against God's Word, what more can I say.
The Other Side of Mel Gibson...sm
Disney Cancels Mel Gibson Holocaust Series
The ABC television network has pulled a miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Mel Gibson 's production company, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, quoting an unidentified representative for the network.
Gibson was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving early on Friday and was reported to have launched into a tirade against Jews, asking the arresting officer if he was a Jew and blaming the Jews for starting all wars.
The actor, who holds strong conservative Catholic religious and political views and whose father is a Holocaust denier, apologized on Saturday.
The incident has raised questions about the future of projects Gibson and his Icon Productions company are working on, like the ABC television miniseries based on a memoir about a Dutch Jew during World War II, the newspaper said An ABC representative told the paper, without elaborating, it has been two years and the network still has not seen a script, so the project is being pulled.
A spokesperson for ABC, which is owned by Walt Disney Co. , could not be reached for comment.
Disney's movie studio arm still plans to release Gibson 's self-financed Mayan-language movie Apocalypto on Dec. 8, Hollywood's trade papers reported. The Web site Slate.com quoted Walt Disney Studios president Oren Aviv as saying he accepted Gibson 's apology.
Copyright Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
We're on the same side
I am trying to understand where all this animosity is coming from. Why does it bother you so much that the last democratic president and former first lady/candidate/senator are going to be at the convention? How would it look if they weren’t there? Hillary and Obama are basically on the same page when it comes to policy, so I am guessing this is a personality issue for you? During the primaries, her tactics and strategies left a lot to be desired, to be sure, which may have been a mitigating factor as to why Obama was ultimately able to come out on top but, let’s face it, not by much. It will be extremely important that the party get past its in-fighting and focus on the task at hand of winning the election in November.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are and will remain influential party leaders for a some time to come. It appears that it is her die-hard base supporters that are acting like children. They are the ones who prolonging the division and ill-will which you are expressing here. Both the Clintons have been selected by the Democratic National Convention Committee to speak in Denver for good reason. The DNC recognizes just how pivotal their roles will be in bringing the party back together. This group of HRC’s supporters who are planning to disrupt the convention and demand a roll-call are not very likely to succeed in this effort. This serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is in nobody’s best interests.
Hillary will eventually “crawl back into her hole,” as you so eloquently put it, and return to her position as a junior senator, but not until she has done her job of trying to encourage party unity. I suspect that she still has much to contribute in that capacity and in roles yet undefined in terms of advancing party policies. Try not to take what the newscasters say as gospel. They relish in scandal and controversy. Do not give them the satisfaction. It should come as no surprise that the Clintons are disappointed in the primary results, but that does not mean that they are supposed to fade on off into the sunset. It is not their time to pass...not just yet.
Bill Clinton, a racist? Where is this coming from? Fox News? He does not hide behind mansion walls in the ghetto. His foundation continues to advance the cause of civil and human rights, both here and abroad. It is unfair to write HRC off as a disgrace to women who needs to “just go away,” based on this one less than stellar chapter in her political career. She is much more than that, just as Bill Clinton is much than the "impeached president" you so casually dismiss. I am wondering if you hated him this much while he was in office, or did this arise out of the recent primary process?
In any case, if Obama is defeated, HRC will not be responsible. It will be this divisive in-fighting within the party members that will be the reason. We are between the primaries and the convention. The entire campaign still lies ahead of us. Just give it a little more time. You will see Hillary and Bill come around as party loyalists who will play perhaps the most key roles of all in party unification. This is not just their job. It is up to all democrats to come together this fall and keep their eyes on the prize. Perpetuating this kind of division does nothing to advance that cause. Is this hatred really worth harboring to the extent that, in the end, we will be facing 4 or 8 more years of a republican regime? Try to keep that in mind the next time you find yourself this riled up, and ask yourself what I ask you now….where is this really coming from? I think I know the answer, but I am more interested in hearing yours at the moment.
Disrespect is nothing new on your side...
and it is not just directed at me, and to suggest so is being dishonest at best. You tolerate no opinion other than your own, want to discuss only issues that you are pro and do not tolerate discussion of any other viewpoint, and for people who call themselves Democrats that is a very undemocratic attitude. You hate an entire group of people (all Republicans...well I should say anyone who is not Democrat) for no reason other than that. Two sides? That's rich! There have never been 2 sides.
As to domination of the board....there are about 6 or 8 of you guys to 1 of mine. lol. Talk about blinders.
All voters should consider this regardless of which side
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
"Woe to the other side who does not
recognize it." What I saw was very scary, an individual who has not clue one about what is going on in this country or out of it. Very scared, indeed. Woe, indeed. You make this election sound like a football game. This is our country, our children's future that is at stake. And no, I didn't find her very knowledgeable in the least, just mouthing words and throwing something someone told her to say. We will see, but I pray to God these two do not get elected.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Another side of the coin.....
I respect your beliefs and am very happy you found your niche in life and saved your marriage. Kudos to you! I myself do not question Obama's morals - and I can't say that I question McCain's either. But, Bush got into the white house based on deceptive strategies aimed at leading the populace to believe he was on the moral high ground. (I see the same strategy being used in McCain's campaign). In view of what has transpired over the last 8 years, my faith in the pubs moral high ground has been trampled beyond repair. I believe torture of other human beings to be reprehensible and not advocated by any religion, but it continues and McCain supported it - even though he himself was tortured as a POW. The sex scandals - Larry Craig (airport bathrooms - it was illegal - otherwise, I don't care who he has sex with), Mark Foley (Repub House Representative - Once known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation, Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 after allegations surfaced that he had sent suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenaged males who had formerly served and were at that time serving as Congressional pages) and now the scandal surrounding the Department of the Interior on charges of getting into bed with big oil (literally and figuratively) drug abuse, etc. I find the whole thing ridiculous to base your campaign on "personality" and moral high ground. I am not saying that Dems did not have their issues with sex scandals - as we all know.
I believe Jesus Christ was once a very highly evolved human being and no longer has to incarnate as a human as he has reached perfection. I believe Buddha was a very highly evolved human being who no longer has to incarnate for the same reason. I believe that Ghandi and Mother Theresa were highly evolved. I believe that energy never disappears, it only changes form. I believe in life after death. I believe that love is the most important thing in life. Humans are not perfect. I do not believe that sex is sin. Dolphins have sex for pleasure and I am not equating humans to aquatic life - but Dolphins are highly intelligent. Do you think God judges them for indulging in pleasure? I believe that exploiting the vulnerable for sex is morally wrong (children, women....that's as far as I'll go on that). Sex between 2 consenting adults is not wrong.
I believe that every religion has it's place on earth and I am in no way authorized or vetted to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. They are all right. Paganism, Wiccan, the Jewish faith, Catholic, Muslim, etc., etc. We, as humans, have the right to decide what is right for us in that regard.
I think all religions know the difference between right and wrong and stealing from others, torturing others, even JUDGING others is morally wrong. You can boil it down to not having ANYTHING to do with religion.
And to believe that whoever is in the white house holds your moral values as a primary reason for decisions that are made is naive. I think the last 8 years proves that and for that reason, I fear more of the same. I am willing to cross party lines just to see if this disaster of a country can be repaired.
The other side of the coin....
Karl Rove would be working to get any Republican elected. That is what he does. He is not a member of the campaign and it is a free country...he can advocate anyone he wants.
If Obama was serious about change he would not have picked a senator who has been in the senate over 30 years. That is not change. That is also more of the same.
James Johnson, of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fame, who used to be an economic advisor to Obama...after he came under scrutiny for possible fraud, he left the OBama campaign with his tail between his legs. Don't see much difference in the two.
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
I'm just going to explain our side...
please don't start a war about this.
We are taught in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. We believe in the holy sanctity of marriage. Therefore it is violating the laws of God when homosexuals marry.
Again, it is not the homosexuals that we "hate" or "despise". It is the sin of homosexuality.
I do believe homosexuals are born that way. We are all born into sinful natures. Remember, in God's eyes, all sins are equal. We all have natural tendencies, and that includes homosexuality. I was born a compulsive liar. Since as far back as I can remember I have lied about anything and everything. Now that I am a Christian, that doesn't change. But with the help of Christ I am changing that and I have put away my sinful nature of lying. In the same sense, when a homosexual comes to know the true Christ, He will give them new desires and help them to withstand the temptation to go back to their old ways.
I know most of you won't understand this, but I just wanted to give you our viewpoint. True Christians do not hate homosexuals, or blacks, or immigrants, or abortionists, or anyone else. We just hate the sin, because sin separates us from God.
We want a president who is going to keep the sanctity of marriage, meaning one man and one woman. Marriage came from God, and it is a holy matrimony.
Please don't flame, I'm just trying to explain in a way that maybe you can understand. I see it from your side too. Before I became a Christian I didn't understand the big deal either. But now I do and I see the big picture. If God had meant for man and man or woman and woman to be together, he would have given us the "parts" to be able to do so.
On the lighter side (maybe)
This was sent to me from a friend. Don't know where the info came from.
Guess who I am?
I am 42 years old
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have five children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice-president
with less than two years in the governor's office.
Who am I?
|
|
|
|
|
V
I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900
How can anyone say that Sarah Palin is not qualified?
|
And I'll be right there on the side with you.
I gotta take a break, this board is making me crazy.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
On the up side of things.........sm
Since I've been such a downer, gloom and doom "prophet" in my last posts  , here is an article that recommends buying now, if you have the cash and the stomach for it, and reap the rewards 10 or 20 years down the road. Might be our solution to no Social Security when that time comes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27829555/
I think I have the other side of the story.
I've been watching all those other stations for years. I just started watching Fox lately. How much more "open-minded" do you want me to be???
...and on the flip side...we will soon see...sm
what Obama will do with his regime.
I have a feeling it won't be pretty.
At least we'll have a reason to throw all the democrats out of all branches of offices when they fall flat on their you know whatsits, and find they can't do what they think they can.
The American people won't stand for what the country is about to become, you included, once you wise up and see what's about to come.
What other side this weekend???
I've been on all weekend and it is more drone of the libs praising their god and arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Who's side you on, Willis?
Bush is the one who refused to do anything about the illegals (cheap help for the rich). Oh, that's right, It's O's job to clean up Bush's mess and he just isn't doing it fast enough to please you. Darn. Heck, Bush would sign anything with a great flourish of the pen and an idiotic grin! He sho did love them cameras!
Why so bitter? Because your side
Typical sore-loser attitude.
I agree. But, you see, when the other side has no
nm
Yes! But the other side of that coin
is that the federal government would have to stop sucking away all that money in the first place, only to dole it back to the states on condition of good behavior. (What many do not acknowledge is that the federal government has no money that it has not first extracted from us. When the federal government 'gives' a state money for any purpose, they are merely giving it back, with strings attached. )
The feds would stop dictating to states based on highway funding, education funding, medical funding, funding for 'the arts,' etc. We would have far fewer federal intrusions into our lives, and if we objected to the way our state governs, we truly could move to an other state more in line with our personal philosophy. As it stands now, if we object to federal regulations, where are we going to move? France?
And on the flip side...
http://www.pnhp.org
France, which comes in 1st in WHO health care rankings, has a better plan for the US to emulate than England's. It *can* be done right, if we try.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
that's because you are on the other side of the fence..nm
nm
The other side of the story.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008
where is the OTHER side of the story?
Netanyahu agreed to the 2-state solution which was only a pretense under HIS ridiculous conditions for the Palestinians:
Total disarmament for the Palestinian state
The whole of Jerusalem for Israel
No return for the Palestinian refugess
BUT
Illegal settlement in the Westbank should remain.
This is ALL to the gross disdvantage for the Palestinians, therefore Abbas rejected the deal and now Netanyahu started again a massacre in Gaza.
Where is justice? It is Israel who wants the WHOLE of the Westbank, the whole of Jerusalem all for itself.
What else do you expect??? For sure there will be a pro-Israel demonstration in Union Square.
Sorry, I never say anyone on either side say things like this. You are sick. NM
So lying is okay when it benefits your side
Okay. I see the picture developing. It was okay that Clinton lied, but just because you think Bush lied he should be impeached post haste. Just want to be sure I'm reading you right here.
Re: Canadians...The flip side. s/m
There is a flip side to some Canadians coming into the US to get health care, jump the line, etc. For every Canadian that comes here for care there is an equal or larger number of Americans entering Canada to obtain more reasonable medication. Also, a small but growing situation are Americans traveling to India for surgical procedures that they otherwise could not afford in the US.
As I have said before, I certainly do not have the magic "fix" for the health care debacle, but there is a flip side regarding Canada, etc.
|
