BJean

rodriguezequal, that's fantastic news!!!! I am thrilled for you. I know you and your husband must be very happy. How far long are you, if you don't mind me asking? Wow. That is such a bright spot to bring to this thread. Yay you!!!

Enron was one company. You wouldn't expect the failure of one company to cause the economy to tank. The idea to encourage banks to make more loans so that people could buy houses wasn't a bad thing. It was the lenders who came up with the schemes that encouraged homeowners to get in way over their heads. Neither Barney Frank nor the other congressional members wanted that or encouraged it. The banks have to take responsibilty for their shoddy lending practices. What we learned from it is that there has to be some oversight to make sure things like Enron aren't common and that lenders don't pull the stuff they pulled that have affected our housing industry and nearly tanked our economy. I do not disagree that individuals must take responsibilty for their purchases and to know whether they can afford them. The fact is, this has become a credit card society. The banks have made billions on giving credit cards to people who really shouldn't use them. It's no different with the home lenders. They concocted programs that would appeal to people even though the people shouldn't be taking out such large loans. Banks and other lenders assure people that they CAN afford more credit cards and bigger houses and more luxury goods. Do you blame people for using credit cards when they are solicited to open new accounts day after day in the mail and on the phone? Banks love the customers who cannot pay their credit card bills off every month. That's where they make their money. We pay our cards off every month and they hate us. Of course they keep upping our credit card limits to ridiculous amounts. We could build a house just using our credit cards. It's crazy. I actually knew a doctor who did use his credit card when he built his multi-million dollar home in Orlando. His builder let him use a cost plus payment method where the doc paid the subs, and he raked in all the frequent flyer miles. Now that's what I call creative financing. Actually I did speak to the fact that capitalism works to protect workers also. And I do not believe that the people running the government want to run corporations in America. I believe they have had to take steps to reign in companies and banks that represent greed gone wild. I believe they want to get out of that business as quickly as possible, and I sure hope they do.

luluc: I'm sure it all depends on your perspective. I have some good friends, gay neighbors, who are committed to each other and wear wedding bands. They have made many friends in the neighborhood and everyone loves them. I believe that there's a good chance prior to getting to know our gay neighbors, these same people would be against gay marriage. But having witnessed, up close and personal, what it means to gays, they would now probably vote to allow them to have a real marriage with all the rights and privileges that heretosexual couples enjoy in America.

Aw Beth, get real! You have said some very personally hurtful things directly to me on other threads. And I have read things that you've directed at other people that were downright hateful. This is not an isolated case where you, uncharacteristically, used rough language. I'm not letting you off the hook either. Because by dang, you have been guilty many times of doing the very things that you accuse others of doing. Sometimes in fact, I wonder if you just write things really fast and don't proof read because you seem shocked when you are called on something you must not even realize you said. DownIn: I for one, knew darned good and well that you weren't actually insulting the good people of Virginia. You even qualified what you were saying by speaking to what you've seen on TV. Beth has a way of trying to turn things around instead of taking responsibility for what she's said. She is quick to jump on someone, and I find that fair enough, but she doesn't seem to be able to take the heat.

luluc: I think most Americans probably don't give a darn about the issue. I think a whole lot of Americans haven't given it much thought at all. If this issue were out on the table and there were pro and anti arguments for everyone to hear, an opportunity for there to be open debate on a regular basis, the outcome could change. It's like abortion rights in a way. It doesn't affect most people and so they might say they believe one way or the other, but when the real arguments get put forth, they surprise even themselves sometimes by realizing that they do not want to vote against women's right to choose on such a very personal issue. Gay rights are very personal - to gays. For other people, it just doesn't affect them in any way and won't ever affect them. So who's arguing against gay rights? The very religious folks who are doing it because they hear only one side of the issue and they have heard it all their lives and they continue to hear it often and loudly. It's an abomination. God says it's an abomination. So enter into the bedrooms of gay people and stand in judgment. Do not allow them their right to all the things that heretosexual people have in this country. God says it's the right thing to do. But in fact, IMHO, it is not. Nor is it the right thing to do to allow the government to intervene when a woman finds herself pregnant when she did not plan it and when she is not able to safely bring a child into the world. Nothing I have said states that it is good for people to be homosexuals. Nothing I have said states that it is good for women to have abortions. What I've said is that it is Constitutionally correct to allow gays and women all the rights (including the right to privacy) that they deserve in our this country.

Beth: "Socal, this isn't about me, and you have no power to keep me on any "hook". I know you want to MAKE it about me, but it's not." Wait just a damn minute... are you the same Beth who has raised hell with me for using angry sounding language?? If you're going to play the blame game and go on the record here calling homosexuals derrogatory names, you can't expect for others who find it ugly and distasteful to let it pass unnoticed. You don't allow anyone else to get away with it.

DownIn: There are definitely toothless, backwoods folks in Virginia. Some of them have such an accent I would defy most other Americans to understand them. But there are also Virginians who are some of the most sophisticated people in the world. Which is another illustration of why it is downright stupid to slap a tag on people and declare that they are smart and good or that they are dumb and evil. One thing I know for sure: the color of one's skin, or one's sexual preferences or the choice of one's church, do not reveal whether a person is good or bad. You have to dig much deeper than those superficial things to find out whether you're dealing with a person of quality and high moral values.

Beth you're the one who is speaking in absolutes here. Not me. I have no idea how it would go if everyone were allowed to vote on it. I tend to think that gay marriage would be defeated, but it is definitely not a given like you think it is. And it absolutely DOES have to do with Christianity and religion.

You know Beth, there has not been a nation-wide referendum on the question of gay marriage. How could you possibly know how the majority of Americans feel on this issue? You know what you've heard or read and I just don't think that there has been a true test yet on how all Americans feel about this issue. You may have decided that because the majority of Americans are Christian, that it follows that the majority of Americans would then vote for a ban on gay marriage. What you may not have taken into account is how many Christians do not have a problem with gays marrying. If your source is some poll that a group has taken, it doesn't change my argument at all. Remember how exit polls aren't accurate? At least during some elections... One reason I take issue with your statements is because you keep noting that when you use the word "majority", it is not in quotes.

Or hey, like Beth might be suggesting (?) he's a transvestite. Needs to tuck, but in that case, forgot to. Not gay, you see, but likes women's apparel including tiaras. Or IS gay and is trying to deflect attention by his answer. Or hmmm, maybe he'll have the surgery one day and become a transgender. Or, well, the possibilities are endless, aren't they?

Everybody is acting like this is an isolated event. Many times over the years women have been made to pay for comments they made or unpopular behavior they did when they were involved in pagents. This is hardly the first. There have even been ones that were just as controversial. So it seems that if Miss California wanted to the crown badly enough, she would have played the pagent game, i.e., she would have given a politically correct answer. Pagents are all about profit. They're about promoting products, although sometimes under the guise of promoting charitable endeavors. Companies that subsidize pagents expect their queens to be relatively non-controversial. Anyone remember the Vanessa Williams fiasco? She got thrown out on her ear. Just as others have been, before and since. Gay marriage is a very hot topic right now and both the proponents for it and the people who are against it should be glad that she opened up the can of worms - it gives them all a chance to weigh in on the subject on a daily basis now. Even here at LBT. Poor Miss Cali. Her friends and family probably goaded her into making the decision to "expose" herself with the answer she gave. Truth be known, I'll bet she would have rather had the crown. I mean she went so far as to get the boobs so you'd think she actually wanted the crown. Or maybe not. She could just want the notariety, like Paris and Brittney and Octomom.

Obama is a smart man and he is a fair one. If he has a resonable choice of whether to penalize corporations for bad choices that harm America or reward them for good choices that benefit America, I believe he will reward them for good choices. In fact, reawrding bad behavior is how we got where we are. Bush put the incentives and rewards out there for corporations, which created a high-profit greed-driven frenzy. That's what got us where we are today. Only a very few Americans have benefitted from those incentives. Millions have been harmed by them. I am sorry that some of you think that rewarding corporations for their extremely ruthless, greedy behavior is the foundation to make capitalism work. For capitalism to work in America, you can't break the back of the majority of Americans. You can't topple the economy and expect capitalism to survive. There always have to be checks and balances and hopefully that's ALL we need, just some oversight that will prevent American corporations from flushing this country down the toilet.

plain I'm not sure that you know the motivation of someone posting semi-nude photos of her. It could be her BFF who's just trying to extend her 15 minutes. Or she could be like Paris, having someone do it for her. So how do you think the gay community got hold of random photos of her??

Actually gadget, the word "never" is the operative word that makes Palin a liar - not the word "consider." Nice try at a deflection though.

The problem with what you're preaching about homosexuality, patty, is that in the past and sometime in the future, people ridicule homosexuals, abuse them physically and even kill them because they think that they should embrace God's word that homosexuals are an abomination - and they hear it every Sunday spouted regularly by evangelicals, right wing extremists and other holier than thou folks. You said it yourself, God gave man free will and God created mankind. He didn't create just heretosexuals. In a perfect world, everything would be perfect. God punished Adam and Eve and we have something much less than perfect. In every way. For people to condemn homosexuals for who they are and how they choose to lead their lives, and whom God made anyway you look at it, is being judgmental and it results in lots of human beings being hurt. But thanks for your lesson on the Bible. That sure cleared that up for me. Sorry for the sarcasm. I've heard everything you wrote all my life in various forms. As I'm sure you have heard everything I've written all your life in various forms. The difference between you and me is that you're going to heaven and I'm going to hell, eh?

No one claims to ever have seen God write anything. No one claims to have seen God. They claim they have seen God IN things, but not God Himself in a physical form. That's one reason why there are no pictures or paintings of God. One must use their imagination or spiritual beliefs to envision God. So tell me, how can God physically write something if he doesn't manifest himself in a physical way? Please note that I do not have a quarrel with the idea that parts of the Bible have been divinely inspired. THAT is what you cannot disprove.

I believe a bisexual is deemed to be attracted to both men and women. I believe that to a bisexual, it has to do with sexual attractiveness. Homosexuals are attracted sexually to a person of the same sex. Heretosexuals to a member of the opposite sex. I think pansexual people can be attracted to anyone, including transgender folks, transvestites, asexuals, etc., etc. In other words, they are not attracted to people because of a sexual draw. They are attracted to people for their personalities and who they are psychologically, instead of who they are sexually.

Well that's a pretty darned simplistic way to condemn Joe for stating his beliefs, eh? I mean there has been YEARS of dialogue on this subject on LBT. It has been an exhaustive and exhausted discussion of the topic and one party (actually several) have repeatedly claimed that even though there is good evidence to the contrary, they still stand by their belief that God actually wrote the Bible and that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Would it have been more comfortable for you if Joe had used the term "pig headed"? Or "foolish" instead of "fool"? Or are we all just expected to agree to disagree? Oh yeah, except that the foolish, pigheaded party won't do that. Hmmm. Guess this is the reason for religious wars, eh?

want: I believe I understand. The pansexual is not always attracted to a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. They are attracted to the person no matter what sex they are. If it is a woman, she might fall in love with another woman or she might fall in love with a man. You understand homosexual, heretosexual and bisexual preferences, right? Well it seems to me that a pansexual doesn't have a set preference for a person of either the female persuasion or male persuasion. They are attracted to and love people because of who they are, unrelated to which sex they are. How'm I doing here, Nancy?

plain, takes one to know one. Ninnie, ninnie, na na. (I gotta give you your props - you do your share of mocking and so that certainly qualifies you to call me out.) For what it's worth (and we all know it's not worth much, but, whatever) I respect what you posted about your beliefs regarding the Bible. Your beliefs pretty much align with most Christians' take on the subject. It makes sense. But you do know that I wasn't speaking in reference to someone with wholly conventional beliefs, don't you? And in the Bible it says that to call someone a "fool" is a bad thing. So be it. I guess that pretty much sums up how I feel about extremists who are judgemental and intolerant but who say they love people when they so obviously demonstrate that they do not respect other people, much less love them. Not only do they scorn other people and their beliefs, but they do not even respect other religions or beliefs. And I believe that until we creatures here on earth can learn to live together with mutual love and respect, we will never be able to live in harmony and peace. LBT is a microcosm that illustrates that perfectly. Yes, intolerance sits squarely on my shoulders too. Guilty as charged. (At least I don't pretend to love everybody and dish out lip service saying what a good little sinner I am.)

Beth: "To presume it was a pro-life "stunt" belittles her pain." Well going through the pain is one thing. Using an experience like that, putting it out there in that way, is a stunt and THAT belittles her pain and her experience as far as I am concerned. The truth of the situation, what actually happened over time was one thing and choosing to use it to work an different agenda is another. It's like Sarah Palin talking out both sides of her mouth in a way. She says one thing when it suits her agenda, but says something different when it suits a different agenda that she's working at a different time.

As the queen of the ramblers, you don't ramble too much! It is great to get the perspective of someone who the issue has touched personally. I'll be honest. I haven't heard the term "pansexual" before coming to LBT. I have heard the description of that kind of ability or desire to love, regardless of sexual identity, but never heard the supposed name for it. I read the definition you posted and I can't imagine what the reference to "more than two genders" means, except to say that perhaps it refers to beings who are transsexual, or bisexual, or transgender, or heretosexuals or homosexuals. Although we usually think of "gender" as referring to male or female. However if you consider the entire definition of the word gender, it can include classifications of things.

I agree Kat, patty is assuming that your only knowledge of Octomom is what the media is telling you. In fact, we have all had the pleasure (or displeasure) of hearing Octomom speak of her situation and we have even seen her parents interviewed and heard their evaluation of the situation. If her own parents know she's a nut job and needs help, it is frustrating for us to read patty continually behaving if Octomom is her BFF, which gives her the right to tell everyone that Octomom deserves the benefit of the doubt about what she's done. Or that by some magic "medium" ability that patty possesses, she knows that Octomom does not deserve our criticism. This one of the reasons why I thought patty believed it is great for people to have as many children as they can.

plain: Rick Warren

Does that mean that you think that when we give corporations big tax breaks and incentives, they pass the savings on to the consumer? Hopefully President Obama is considering making it not so lucrative for American corporations to operate overseas and to hire employees who are non-residents of this country. So instead of incentivizing them to hurt the American worker and the mid-level American tax payer, he will incentivize them to operate in a way that is beneficial to this country. You think that's a bad thing, right?