Tired_Old_Man

A minister has a right to say to his members that they must follow the 10 Commandments and that one of the commandments is "thou shalt not steal" and another is "thou shalt not kill". However, that minister has no right to say that, Rudy Giuliani is a strong "law and order" candidate and that Rudy's platform of long prison terms for criminals and treating child offenders like adults is the best way to make people follow the 10 Commandments, or that neither of Barack Obama's Liberal policies of building more recreational facilities (claiming that it will keep people away from temptation), nor putting better housing and more jobs into poverty neighborhoods will help people follow the 10 Commandments. He should also not say IMHO, that one candidate offers long prison terms for criminals and treating child offenders like adults while the other wants to build playgrounds. Who do you think will protect us from the violators of the 10 Commandments? Note: I do not know the policies stated for Giuliani or Obama are actually their ideas. They were just used as examples.

There are three groups in the USA that tend to vote as a block. One group is the Black people Another group is the Gay people And the last group is the Evangelicals I will not equate the reason for this voting as a Block, but here are Some Items to ponder: The vast majority of the first two groups vote Democrat. The vast majority of the last group votes Republican. Only a small minority, the so-called base, generally vote in Primaries and those that vote in Primaries tend to be further from the center than the average general election voter. Many members of the first two groups vote in the Primaries and they vote for the more Liberal candidates. Many members of the last group vote in the Primaries and they vote for the more Conservative candidates. The members of the first two groups believe that they are in those groups by nature (rather than nurture). In other words, "they were born that way". The members of the last group believe that they are in that group by nurture (rather than nature). In other words, "they chose (or learned) to be that way". Conclusion: I'll leave that up to you (everyone).

If Americans stopped coveting their Neighbor's possessions, either the US economy would fall apart (bad) or the people who live paycheck to paycheck would have to get off their "Credit Card Jones" (Good). OR BOTH!! Note: For those who don't know the vernacular; Jones = Habit (like in Heroin addiction)

Today I went to a credit union and took out $1500 in cash. I was given 15 $100 bills. While pointing to the picture on the bills, I playfully said to the teller, "some people think he was one of our greatest presidents". She looked up and said, "Don't you"? I said, "Of course not". "Why?" "He was never president!!" "He wasn't?" "No, Benjamin Franklin was never a president of the United States." Then I went to a bank to deposit my $1500 and said to the teller, "I was just at my credit union getting this money and I said to the teller, 'some people think he was one of our greatest presidents'. She asked me, 'Don't you'? and I said, 'Of course not'." "How come?" asked the bank teller. "Because he was never president!!" "OH!"

Did they ask you? I have been asked political questions while on a plane by passengers and I always play dumb and politely refuse to answer. You see, some people have enough discipline and enough brains to know who they are and what they are at a given time. My company did not own me, but I owed them an obligation not to cause them any ill will from the public. This may be hard for many to understand, but General Pace is a public servant, paid for with the money of the US tax-payers. He has no right to insult any tax payers and/or citizens and should keep his mouth shut except when the president gives him permission to discuss a topic. And the president is also a public servant. King George was the ruler of the 13 colonies and when those colonies overthrew his rule, it was decided that the new nation would be run by men who worked for the people. Worship Jesus all you want. But do not worship the president. He owes you and me, and all the other citizens of the USA, respect for the rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution. BuSh keeps saying that he swore to protect the USA when he became president. He (as usual) is wrong. The oath he took says. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He has not done that. He has tried to destroy the Constitution.

Get hold of the HBO documentary: "Hacking Democracy". Go to HBO's website and search for "Hacking Democracy". Al Gore got minus 16,022 votes in one county in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.

Last year for the first time in history, the state of Florida lost more people than it gained for a net drop in population. Same amount of homes, less people equals lower prices. Plus insurance has tripled in the 3 years since I moved here because of the hurricanes and taxes have doubled.

Jesus said "Blessed are the Peace-Makers" and invading a country as a pre-emptive strike on false intelligence is not the act of a "Peace-Maker".

It is not bigotry against Christians for Liberal not to get involved in Christian infighting (the Romney book) and it is not bigotry against Christians for people to object to a man wearing a uniform representing a government organization to say things that many (or most) people will accept as official government policy. Mr. Pace has a right to condemn Gays. General Pace has a no right to condemn Gays. When I was an aircraft mechanic, I was on board fixing last minute items many times while passengers were also on board. I could not tell them that being Gay was immoral. I could not tell them that being Gay was not immoral. Why, because I was representing my company when on board fixing the company's plane. If I met a passenger while off the airport, I could say anything I wanted to that person because then I was representing myself, not my company at that point. And one more thing. Jesus said "Blessed are the Peace-Makers". I hardly think that a general who controls and directs killing is a proper spokesman for Jesus. Jesus did not say, "Blessed are the Peace-keepers". Those who kill often think of themselves as peace-keepers. When Ronald Reagan could not get the MX missile through congress, he renamed in the "Peace-Keeper" and Jerry Falwell told his followers to write their congressmen to get the "Peace-Keeper" program funded.

Because Jesus would not have condoned the war in Iraq or the war on the poor in the USA, or the war on the environment (by the poluters and big business), but the leadership of the Christian Right politcal Movement does. They do not represent Jesus. They represent the money changers and the powers that control us.

You are correct with one slight correction on my part: you have less information then you do when you know someone's alleged religious affiliation.

Until the good Christians like you and I follow my advice, Christianity will suffer a bad reputation. The advice stated twice in this thread already is: "(W)hen are the believers in Jesus going to take back their church from the politicians masking themselves as "men of God"."

Will Hillary bang Kenneth Starr if she wins the election, just to get even with Bill?:faint:

Forget about proof. I have not seen any innuendo even o the right-wing blogs about that issue. They have tried to smear Obama about being a Muslim terrorist, and the usual stuff about Gore and Edwards being Rich, but nothing about adultery. Unless Hillary got even. Did Hillary bang Kenneth Starr?

Do you have any proof that either Hillary or Obama are adulterers? Or Edwards or Gore, for that matter?

She is referring to the book about Romney being a Mormon that the article's author is accusing Liberals of not complaining about.

I think the problem is not that Liberals or atheists would not vote for a Mormon, because to Liberals and atheists, a Mormon is just another flavor of Christianity, but it is the Evangelicals who object because Mormons and Evangelicals don't agree on some fundamental issues.

Of course you can, and I am debating you. Do not accuse me of always thinking I am correct, because I know of no one on this board who posts thinking that they are incorrect. I, in fact sometimes say the opposite of my true intentions and have sometimes been accused of bigotry by people who have only read that one sarcastic mocking post. Christians come in all shapes, sizes and types and they can be as different as night and day, as you and I often prove, but that is ok for as Paul said in Romans 12- 2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. You, Leatha and I do not conform to the same ideas of Christianity. When I and many others complain about Christianity, we are complaining about the people who have shaped Christianity as a political tool. I asked in another thread:

I needed to boast to enhance my macho male image.:eek:

But then the Roman Catholics will still fight the Protestants as in Belfast Northern Ireland, the Shiites will still fight the Sunnis as in Iraq and the Tutsi will still fight the Hutu as in Rwanda. We fight using religion or color as the excuse, but it is all about power and money.

Then when are the believers in Jesus going to take back their church from the politicians masking themselves as "men of God". If Christians realized the dirty politics needed to rise to Jerry Falwell's or Pat Robertson's or James Dobson's positions, they would know that no one who has risen that high is truly a man in Christ's mold. They will tell you that it was God's wish that they moved to the top, but it was back-stabbing and treachery that made them what they are today, leaders who speak for their flock and just like real shepherds, they intend to lead their flock to slaughter.

But it is the Christians who, though they are the ones complaining in the thread opening article, refuse to vote for someone unless they meet their religious standards. They sometimes hide behind the word "character" but they mean religious standards. That's is why the part about book about Romney is a "red Herron". Liberals don't care about that issue and I doubt would read that book. It is the conservatives who read it and then complain about its implications.

This issue is very hard to debate because there are many special rules for humanity that are easily forgotten, and that are easily left out of the logic. I am a Christian, but I know that contrary to what some (or most) Christians think, that human beings are part of the animal species. However, because of their superior brains and their special consciousness, the human animal is given special privileges (though we call them rights). Though humans have this higher intelligence, it has been agreed upon as the human race has become more civilized that humans must still be protected from themselves and that certain rule of conduct are generally accepted. We do not allow humans to be slaves, even indentured slaves, nor do we allow them to sell off their body parts. As a theist, I know that humans are animals, though others of my religion say that they are not animals, but God made creatures in his mold. I resist the dogma of my religion, but atheists can easily fall into the trap of religious dogma, by replacing the standard deities with the deity of money. Just like the 911 pilots thought that the killings of thousands of Americans were ok, because they were doing it for their God, many atheists and capitalists think that selling body parts, slavery and selling reproductive rights are ok as long as it is done in the name of God, their God; MONEY. No! Money does not make things right. No more that strong people pushing weak people around when you line up for the movies, rich people have no rights to buy life from poor people. When a Mike Tyson type character says to me a 61 year old man, “get out of my way or I will kill you”, he is no worse than when a Bill Gates says “get out of my way or I will pay someone to kill you”. The use of money does not make it any less a form of bullying or abuse. Paying the poor, whether because it is their fault that they are poor and no matter why they are poor, is wrong when you take away their humanity or their special privileges we have bestowed on all humans and that we call human rights. It is generally accepted (except by organizations like PITA) that we do not have to pay a horse for it to pull a wagon and most civilizations believe that other animals can be used for food or other human needs, but we have degreed that humans are special. The Christian/Judeao/Muslim religions have all agreed as have most non-traditional groups. It is only the one religion of the money worshipers who think that taking away the human rights of human beings is ok if done under the name of their God; MONEY.

Too many posts, too many people posting and too many sub-plots.:faint: Good Night!!!

I would agree with that or that Norform under the skin implant. BTW: I think I made a mistake before and I thought you were defending permanent sterilization rather than IUD's.