BJean

Left wing media had nothing at all to do with what happened that election night. It was reported everywhere. Except perhaps that Fox News might have done everything in their power to use smoke and mirrors to make their viewers think it was simply a "conspiracy theory." Suckers.

Anti-choice is much more descriptive of the anti-abortion movement than pro-life. They are not all 100% in favor of making 100% of abortions illegal. So they are not all 100% pro-life when it comes to abortion. There are usually some qualifiers, like rape and incest. Maybe gross deformities. Maybe other conditions that haven't been mentioned here would be severe enough for those folks to agree that an abortion is necessary. Pro-choice couldn't be much more accurate than it is in describing people who believe that women's reproductive choices should not be made for them by the government. At no time, ever, do they think it is appropriate for the government to intervene in women's lives with regard to them having or not having babies. Pro-choice people may or may not believe that abortion is a good thing. They may even think that abortion is a very bad thing. But they all agree that the choice of whether or not to have an abortion is a right that women should have, whether they believe in it or not.

The questions you raise truly underscore the reason why this should not be a legal issue. It is a personal issue. It should not be the state's right to tell women what they must do if they become pregnant. It's just so wrong on so many levels. If it were actually a black and white issue, where there were no variables, no problem areas, it would probably be different. But this is not a simple thing. It is very complicated and it is very, very, very important. People are qualified and able to make these decisions for themselves without government intervention. And they will make these decisions whether the government says they can or not.

Did you ignore the stories in the Bible about Jesus, patty? The ones where He didn't judge anyone, He accepted people, showed them love and thereby won their hearts. You had a perfect opportunity to be a loving force in that woman's life and yet you chose to look down on her for being a smoker. You had an opportunity to win that woman over to God, and yet you chose to not represent what God's word says about how we should do unto others here on earth. When you smoked for those 10 years, I wonder how you would have felt if you were hungry and someone in a church or on the street turned you away becaused they judged you to be unworthy. Tough love is something you do to intervene in someone's life so that they will get the help they need. Tough love is talking to someone, offering your support, extending a hand in helping them beat whatever problem that they can't handle for themselves. You didn't "tough love" that woman, you turned her away. There are smarter and better ways to teach a child and a smoker than making them go hungry. What you suggest as tough love is tough all right, but it has nothing to do with love.

patty you judged the smoking woman just as sure as I'm sitting here. You made the judgement that she had enough money for food if she had enough money for cigarettes. You made the judgement that she had purchased those cigarettes with her own money. You made the judgement that she was not trying to quit smoking with every ounce of effort she had in her. It was you who made the call on all of those things in one fell swoop. If you were donating the food, then your heart was not in the right place if you were passing judgement on those who came to you for help. Just as Jesus did not pass judgement on Mary Magdelen and just as Jesus came to the assistance of the woman in the Bible who committed adultry. (Those were not necessarily mutually exclusive acts.) The point was made in the Bible that it is not for you to judge others no matter what their sin because you too are a sinner. So to set yourself up as a missionary of sorts, a do-gooder who says she wants to help someone who is hungry, but instead judges them to be someone who is not worthy enough to share your food, is not only someone who has cast the first stone, but you do so knowingly with malice aforethought. You know exactly what Jesus stood for - you can quote the Bible from memory - you KNOW BETTER, but you chose to cast the first stone. The smoking woman should have walked away and been thankful that she hadn't accepted food that had such hateful stipulations attached. And how in the world do you know that God didn't send that woman to test you?

I'm still reeling from the confession that one supposedly "good" person would turn away a supposedly "bad" person from being given food because they are smoking a cigarette. Judgement: what one superior person decides is right or wrong activity committed by another person.

I am not at all sure that Kat is posting what she is because she supports prostitues. I think she is trying very hard to understand women who might be lured by the money that they cannot make by working in conventional jobs that they are qualified for. There's a difference, for instance, in wanting to legalize prostitution and supporting prostitution. Religious fanatics don't see it that way. But their way only serves to keep those women categorized as "criminals" and yet their work is victimless. I don't see many people who consider prostitution a sin lobbying for the men's names to be made public and for them to be thrown into jail and prosecuted if they pay for the services of a prostitute. Why is it always the women who have to be punished and not the men? Why it is far more acceptable for men to only be looked down on for going to a prostitute for sex, but the women need to be punished by being prosecuted and jailed?

Wait a minute. Wasn't there a famous character in the Bible who was a prostitute? And didn't Jesus embrace her? And what about not "casting the first stone" eh?

Yes, Wasa. She often puts that in her posts. The fact that she's fat and that's a sin, etc. She likes to say that she's a sinner and that she tries to not sin but that God forgives her. Only when a person knows they're sinning and they continue to do it, is it a bad thing. Because God knows we're all sinners and he forgives us if we are born again, accept Jesus Christ as our own personal savior, etc., etc. So because she admits that she's a sinner, as with most evangelicals, that gives them the right to judge others and take it upon themselves to be an instrument of God to let the sinner know who they are, what they are, and how they should be punished here on earth for being a sinner and not knowing Jesus. Did I get that right patty? Because I am sure that you can't wait to set me straight if I didn't.

Thank God that there are people like Nursemelly, who really do care and are big enough and kind enough to help people who are down.

battygreen: "If women choose to have sex with someone other than the one she is married to, for whatever reason, like to make money, then the consequences go along with that. All I'm saying is that you reap what you sow. If you do the 'right' things in life, you can usually avoid things like aids, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. I had a tenant who would go to the local food bank every week, cause she had no money for food, but she had a 2 pack a day addiction to cigarettes. If I was running that food bank, I'd tell her she couldn't receive any food because if she would quit smoking, she would easily be able to afford her own groceries. It's not right to enable people, because when you do, you keep them bound to their sin. In order for them to DO something about their circumstance, they need to hit the bottom sometimes, so they can bounce back. It's called 'tough love'. It's not about 'hating' anyone." BJean: I have some friends who use your same logic. They believes that after every drug bust in the United States, the drugs that are confiscated should then be laced with poison and put back out on the street. Those darned drug users would then reap what they sow - death from drugs. They claim that would help everyone out. Puts the drug user out of his misery. Gets them off the dole since they're probably wandering up to food banks for sustinence. Helps the vice squad clear out the street riff raff. The police don't have to have as many officers dealing with the drug problem, etc., etc. I think that's hateful and mean and clearly judgmental and intolerant. As several here have said, you can't know what the circumstances are for someone's prostitution, or drug use for that matter. I believe that if these things that are wrecking people and our country, the victimless crimes, were leagl and dealt with in some kind of sane way, then the perpetrators would reap what they sow without any help from self-righteous, judgmental, intolerant boobs. If people get hooked on drugs or if they can't make a living any other way than prostitution, then so be it. Who are we to pass judgement on them here on earth by doing things like you did, refusing a woman food because she smokes? If a person chooses behavior that is a sin or detrimental to their health, it is their choice. They have to suffer any consequences. It isn't up to you or my friends to pass judgment and inflict punishment. Don't try to pass your behavior off as "tough love" because what you did was pass judgment, be intolerant of someone with different beliefs than you, and inflict punishment. Don't tell us that you don't consider yourself God. Or at least God's tool. Don't tell us that you don't hate. Your behavior and your words clearly expose what you are all about. We're just going by what you tell us. And what you tell us everyday on every thread on which you post, is that you are judgemental, consider yourself an instrument of God, and you believe that you are well-equipped to inflict punishment whenever you have the opportunity. Tough love my booty.

plain gets what? plain, the information about the illegal things that went on in the first election were all over the news 24/7 and are still being discussed. I can't imagine that you said what you did about it. That fisco was the furthest thing from a "conspiricy theory". Just because you didn't experience it, didn't read about it and KNOW the truth from your own experience, doesn't mean it didn't happen and that it is a "theory." You people really ARE good at trying to re-write history. Amazing, simply amazing. Please do go have some more wine and pickle your brains further.

I am stunned by some of the answers to rodriguez's questions and comments. I am so very glad that you are such an intelligent and loving person, rodriguez. You are generous of spirit and kind and I think a whole lot of you. I believe that since you won't have to have a D&C, you will recover physically even quicker, yes? If there is a problem with a malformed egg or sperm that have joined and will eventually (if it lives) become a malformed fetus, I believe that it is intelligent to make the choice to abort. I think it is unfair to that potential child to bring it into the world where pain and suffering, hospitals and medicine are its' life. If IVF is okay with God, then abortion is okay too when it is necessary.

plain, you should watch politicians sometime. They are able to dance around a political subject without lying. I think that lying is wrong. Not exposing yourself to criticism when it is not in your own best interests is what we do for self-preservation. That's not wrong, that's intelligent. It is often used when a lady is with friends and a controversial topic comes up and she doesn't start a heated argument because she disagrees with the point her friends are making. You know... the opposite of what happens here at R&Rs. What's going to be the death of us is all this friggin' intolerance, finger-pointing and name-calling.

If prostitution were legal and there were some controls and guidelines put into place, the public and the prostitutes would have some protection. As it is now, it's a very seedy, filthy business and it isn't going away. Saw the movie. Quite the thriller. Liam Neeson is always great.

No more than you, dear. And jack.

Terridoodozle, I WAS in the room. It is hilarious to read Beth's post. The left didn't attempt to steal anything in the 2000 election. In fact, they were stunned by the stuff the Republicans pulled off. We all were. And you should have been watching instead of drinking the kool-aide. This time, our man did win, or hadn't you noticed? We went to task on the two former elections and since Bush had blocked every attempt to have a ligitimate election process, the Dems got real busy. Paybacks are hell, eh?

Guess misunderstandings are to be expected when people are at loggerheads. There's no way out of this discussion because we're talking apples and oranges and you really don't care. Whatever.

Beth are you just intentionally being silly about the election or do you really not know what went down? There sure is a lot of information readily available about all the improprieties that went on. Perhaps you didn't live in a state where the election was stolen. Many of us did and we know the reality of what happened. It isn't a theory. It's not something we had to go somewhere and research like you must need to do. We lived through it, watched it happen right before our eyes. We've had this discussion on LBT many times, specifics were cited, questions were asked and answered. Guess you weren't around then. Anyway, there are probably some valid instances you can use to accuse people of "drinking the kool-aide" but you really should let the election one go. I'm not saying you have to of course, but just making a suggestion because I care so much about you and the image you project.

Please be careful rodriguez! As we all know, people can be very passionate when it comes to this topic. You feeling physically okay today?

Nope you're not a statistician. And we don't need a non-statistician to "translate" anything for us. If a study of any kind isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, then tossing it out there as if it is has just gotta make you wonder what the motive is. You should be more concerned with real condom failure rate. You should be demonstrating on street corners on how to properly use a condom if you're so concerned about the abortion numbers. In fact, birth control methods of all kinds should be more out in the open with full disclosure of side effects and failure rates. (And it doesn't take the mentality of a teenager to understand that if he doesn't use a condom, it won't work.) And by the way, since you're so harpy on this topic, I've known for nearly my entire adulthood how our ob/gyns gathers data on birth control "failures." I know that there is a classification for failure rates based simply on what the couple's normal choice of birth control is, whether they used it properly or not. There is also a classification of failure rates when birth control was thought to have been properly used. As in whether the IUD was in place as it should have been, if the patch had fallen off, if a pill has been missed, etc. Which is what is relevant when sex education information, including the various birth control methods, is being assessed for composing a cirriculum.

Hells yeah, I'd like a toddy. But I won't drink your kool-aide without some 101 proof vodka.

That is a great post, terridoogle. The old "the president is a socialist" conspiracy theory is a prime example of how irrelevant the truth is to that claim. The election process of 2000 is not a "theory" however. There is plenty of factual data that has been made public from the night of the election into the years that followed. But I do think what you posted is a theory that might explain why people like to debate theories here on LBT. And might also tell us why those who oppose the beliefs and ideas of a poster, would insist repeatedly that the poster "prove" their beliefs and ideas. And it would also explain why those who share common beliefs, ideas or theories would not ask for proof from each other. They use each others' posts to become even more "behaviorally committed" and "the more impossible it becomes to change your [their] mind."

gadget I understand your logic and you're right, I sure do not agree with it. You've always been able to come up with statistics that are jarring. You are excellent at sounding credible. Using shock to scare people to make their case could have been invented by the anti-choice movement because they are so darned good at it. Fortunately most people see it for what it is. They are not fooled and they are turned off by it. You cannot say that a condom didn't work if it wasn't used, not when you are citing FAILURE rate for birth control methods. You can say that the use of condoms for birth control failed when you are talking about pregnancies that happen when the people involved use condoms as their regular birth control, but didn't use a condom on the occasion when they conceived. There's a big difference when you are teaching people about birth control. And that's what we were talking about. You must make the distinction that if condoms are your birth control of choice, they will not work to prevent pregnancy if you don't use them. And if you use them, you absolutely must use the equipment properly or they will fail. I wasn't trying to give you a "backhanded" compliment. I was just telling it like I see it. It is what it is. I see you've knocked yourself out. Seriously, right out of the ballpark as far as I'm concerned. A homerun of rebuttal. Wow. Impressive.

Why don't we focus here on Beth's assertion that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.A.? And she compares it to the election steal? Weren't you able to read or listen during the first Bush election, Beth? Had your head in the sand or something? Have you ever known anyone who has been born out of your state? Do you understand how citizenship things work? Do you know what a naturalized citizen is? Do you know how many states we have? You're just mad because the Democrats were able to prevent the Republicans from pulling the same bullshite in the last election that they did in the previous two. I know you're disappointed, but if I were you I don't think I'd go around claiming that those elections relate in any way to president Obama's birth certificate. Of course, I'm not you. And that's a good thing, right?