pattygreen

I don't hope that people get aids. I hope people will learn from their sins and correct bad behavior from the consequences that they endure because of it.

I understand that liberals in general feel that the government should be the parent and fix all the peoples problems for them, but the fact is that the government should NOT. People need to endure the consequences for their actions so that they can mature and grow and change from their bad behavior. It wont happen if the government just "gives" the people the fix.

You constantly put your own swing upon what others say. In this world, people do things to bring about the 'problems' that they have in life. If only they would think about the results of their actions BEFORE they do what they do. Consequences for your own actions should be a part of life. It teaches us and helps us to grow and change so that we will be better. Without consequences, people will go on living as they have and never change, and therefore, always be having problems. People need to be responsible for their choices, and when the "parent", whoever plays that roll, continuously bails the child out and paves the way for them to continue to live in that way, it is a shame. The "parent" does the child a disservice. He hinders the child from growth and maturity. Shame on the parent who does that to their child! Shame on the government for doing that to the people they govern! No one wants to see anyone get AIDS or any other "consequence" from their wrong choices in life, but sometimes, enduring consequences is needed in order for the person, and especially for the other people viewing the consequences, to stop their behavior. He may have not worded what he was trying to point out to the people in an eloquent way, but what he was trying to say was clear. People must go through the consequences for their actions in order for those consequences to lesson for others. We learn from the mistakes and trials that we have gone thorough and those that we see going through them. "No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

I suppose cleo's is okay with the government paying for all those signs to advertise how the stimulus has wasted our money. Just another way for government to spend our hard earned money frivilously.:thumbup:

{Cleo's quote} "Just when I thought I had heard all there was from hateful, mean-spirited republicans, I recently learned about the following."...{end quote} That's republicans with an "S". You are speaking of all republicans when you quote your rants about the few.

Whenever you speak of the right, you speak of them as a whole. You rarely differentiate between those few who do stupid crap, like holding a sign that says "I hate Obama" and the millions who don't do that kind of crap. You lump them all together and truly believe that they are all haters and racists. Cause if you didn't you wouldn't go on and on about how it has to do with Obama's skin color instead of the fact that we can't stand what he's doing to our country.

So, you admit you 'hate'? Anyways......I have ALWAYS pointed out that there will always be a few in every group who are idiots! BUT to classify the whole group for the idiotic actions of a few is wrong. And that's what YOU do.

This was okay though? Your libaral democrat friends carried signs tha actually read "KILL BUSH"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They weren't playing no game! I am in no way endosing the carnival game in any way. I believe it is wrong. I'm just here to point out your hypocrisy.

A few nice nuggets thrown in with the gravel at first doesn't fool anyone. We see it for what it will do to us LATER. When there is no money to support it and they will have to deny care to people due to not being able to cover the expense of it.

No. One month matters. Yours is Old news!

dramaqueen!

All I'm saying is : If God could create Adam and Eve 6000 years ago to live on this earth and to be our "first parents", why isn't it possible that he created other different beings 'made in his image' before them. This article tells of these "human neandrethals" as having a unique and differnt DNA than humans today, and that they became wiped out all at once like the dinosaurs were. A potter makes something on His platform out of His clay and then destroys it and starts over with something new all the time.

Is this a new species of human being? Scientists have extracted DNA from a bone discovered in Siberia that almost certainly belongs to a new kind of human – one that may have lived as recently as 30,000 years ago. Will this transform our views of human evolution? The discovery of X-woman marks a first in using genetics alone to identify what many palaeontologists believe must be a new human species. But this is also one of the earliest attempts to look at ancient DNA from human remains.

here is the source: Science and the Bible Most Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. I do not. But I didn't want to rock the boat on that one, mostly because the age of the earth does not make God any less real or what he says any less truthful.

It has been proven scientifically that the human remains found that you speak of do NOT have the same kind of Human DNA that humans have today. They are a different species altogether. Is it possible that at one time God created other beings to live on this earth before Adam and Eve? I believe it is. He created Dinosaurs at one time to roam this earth and then he wiped them all out in a day, why not other beings? All I know is that The earth and the Heavens were created in the beginning (whenever that was) just as God says in his word. Adam and Eve were created approx. 6000 years ago. What was on this earth before them, I do not know. (except for what science has uncovered. Dinosaurs, etc.) Also carbon dating is only accurate for up to a few thousand years. Read this article about it. Is carbon dating accurate? Is carbon dating accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. during the industrial revolution more carbon-12 was being produced offsetting the ratio a bit). Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991) So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.

That's old news! This report was in June. My report was just the other day.

Nice try. I know, and God knows, the truth and that's really all that matters. You have been calling the right haters and racists from day one. There is NO denying that. I called you it back when you kept insisting that you were justified in calling the tea partiers those names. Because you were so insistent that we were haters and racists, I put it back on you. I said it was YOU that was a racist and a hater, not them. Also, when I said that I never called anyone a hater or a racist before, I also said "anyone BUT Cleo'smom."

Jewish World Review Week of August 2, 2010

Why would anyone having a belief in a creator be disturbing to you? If there is a painting, there is an artist. Right? What is so hard to believe. Is it easier for you to believe that you just happened by chance? A big bang and all of a sudden you're here? And so perfectly made? So intricate? So wonderous?

Obama approval on economy drops to new low in CNN poll Share87 posted at 3:15 pm on July 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey printer-friendly So much for Recovery Summer. The entire idea of this new PR campaign was to stimulate recovery in the trending on Barack Obama’s approval ratings, but it’s been as effective at that as Obamanomics has been at reviving the economy. CNN is the latest to notice that the trend continues: Americans approval of how President Barack Obama is handling the nation’s economy has dropped to its lowest level of his presidency, according to a new national poll. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that 42 percent of the public approves of how Obama’s dealing with the economy, down 2 points from March, with 57 percent disapproving of his performance on the economy, up 2 points from March. The survey’s Friday release comes as the president made comments at the White House on what he termed the progress made this week on the economy and job recovery. This isn’t a big change from their last survey on the question. It’s a four-point swing on a question that has been a problem for Obama since last September, the last time he had a majority approval on the issue. Since then, he’s been significantly underwater. In fact, the big takeaway is just how little opinion has changed on the economy. While Biden keeps talking up the economy, he’s speaking to empty rooms, figuratively speaking. The number of respondents in CNN polls saying that the economy is either somewhat or very poor has been 78% in every poll since March, and only descended from 83% in February. Obviously, people aren’t at all convinced that anything has improved, and for good reason. If the administration insists on pushing its Recovery Summer campaign, they risk painting themselves as hopelessly out of touch.