You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

Patty,

I'm sure you will always be pro-life and I will always be pro-choice. I do not think I am taking this off topic because it has been mentioned many times here.

I just want to give you props for all of your efforts in foster care and adoption. :eek: I believe you have been a postive part in many children's lives. I think it is great that there are people like you who offer these kids love, family and a solid foundation that they may not have had without you. :wink:

Hummingbird, Thank you for saying that. That was really nice.

This forum is a "rants and raves" forum. That is what we do here. On this forum there are many controversial issues being discussed. The debate is about those issues. When I speak about them, you hear my point of view on them, whether right or wrong, not necessarily my of view on what people should be doing in life, like good deeds, caring for the sick and feeding the hungry. Conservative do not feel that taking care of the sick, feeding the hungry or those other things you mentioned are sinful. Where do you get that? But, if you want to know how I participate in these things, I will share them. They are high on my priority list. I contribute to my church food pantry and local food pantry often. I have taken in children to care for them. (I did 20 years of Foster care) And have adopted 3 abused and neglected children. I teach a local girls club class. I have taught Sunday school. I write weekly to a young man in prison, and I give to the prison ministry that is set up by men in my church. I donate to the clothing drives. I support missionaries in many countries. I support the Teen Challenge Program in CT that helps drug and alcohol addicted people. I have cared for the elderly for many years and bring entertainment and services to them. I am not a sit back and complain Christian. I try to do what I am able to do for my community.

I do not believe that I am lying when I make a blanket statement about liberals. Jesus called the pharasees and Saducees 'hypocrites!' in a blanket statement. Did he mean 'all' Pharasees and 'all' Saducees were hypocrites? Or was he giving a generalization of them?

As for being afraid to examine evidence that is contrary to my belief sytem, there is none. The bible is God's word and I believe it. I will never put any of man's writings or words ahead of or above His. I have looked at many things that people have written that they feel out trumps what God has to say, but I don't believe any of it. I am not afraid to look into it at all. I just don't believe it over what the bible says.

I too think it is admirable that you are willing to reach out and serve Him by caring for the less fortunate. It seems that in spite of your punitive unforgiving stance you do a lot of positive. Unfortunately many conservatives are opposed to service to the "undeserving." One of the saddest conversations I ever had was with a young missionary wife who stated that they "were not rice missionaries!" When I asked her what a "rice missionary" was she told me that they fed the spirit by preaching the gospel, they did not feed the people and then preach because this would mean that the congregation was only there for the food. I was so turned off by this young woman, I can't begin to describe it. It still amazes me when people over look deprivation and hunger yet expect people to trust God. I think when people look at the background of murderers and thieves they often see a lot of deprivation and neediness. Too bad we as a society don't do more sooner. We probably wouldn't have to deal with as many people considering abortion or facing imprisonment or the death penalty.

Yes Patty when you say "Liberals believe its okay to kill babies, etc." that is a lie because you are not willing to listen to what we are saying. You automatically revert to what you believe the Bible says. You are not willing to weigh it out. That is the same as if I were to say "Conservatives believe it is okay to starve babies." That is a statement I would never make. There are loads of liberals who I do not see eye to eye with and loads of conservatives who have beliefs that I share. Generally my beliefs line up closer with most liberals beliefs and I proudly own that title. I tell people I am a card carrying liberal and proud of it. I think however that we all need to talk about those things we have in common and listen to one another to try to find answers and solutions for the things that we both see as problems. I think we all agree that teen pregnancy, crime, homelessness and poverty are problems. We need to put our energies into finding solutions. The thing which is keeping us from reaching some effective solutions in our country today is the polarization of the right and the left.

Corliss

Oh my goodness Corliss, that was an amazing post. Absolutely amazing. You have single-handedly homed in on the heart of the debate and the soul of the solution.

You have said exactly what has been in my head but because I've been so tied up in debate, I haven't been able to say it.

Thank you so much. I am grateful that you've inspired e to get back on track and focus on the real problem. The polarization of the right and left - which involves disrespect and winds up causing us to not solve any of the problems that we need to be working on together.

I wonder if it will ever be possible for a leader of this country to inspire us to work together instead of just fighting each other.

Hummingbird I loved your post too. You were very generous and understanding that is exactly what we need in order to solve problems.

I appreciate the fact that you thanked Hummingbird for her post, patty, and complimented her on it.

I think it's kind of scary that PG has had an influence on so many children...lol like making a PG cult lol jk. It is wonderful...if only there were more people willing to adopt the unwanted, the deformed, the troubled, the disabled and the special needs children...sigh

And then there are those (like me) who don't care what the bible says with regard to how our government should govern. That is the real issue here and if you were to poll the american public, by a large majority, they do not want one particular biblical interpretation to be the basis for our country's laws.

Exactly!!!!!

How many times have I said this on this forum? This is exactly what we mean when we say the United States is a Secular Democracy.

That would only make sense...taking a life is never ok after all...

By that line of thinking, it is no more ok for the State to take a life than for an individual to take it. Which is my perspective, BTW. That is not my main opposition to death penalty though. Mainly I oppose it because the State gets it wrong too often and should not be trusted with the responsibility of killing its citizens.

Back to the discussion about translating the Bible, eh?

All men are sinners. How can sinners set themselves up to the judge of whether a person should be put to death?

We are all aware that there have been many times in our history where we killed someone with the death penalty and learned later that they had been falsely accused. How can that ever be forgiven or condoned? I don't think it can be condoned by God. I think that those who sentence a person to death and carry out that sentence will be be judged by God and will have much to answer for.

Well said.

If we ever get it wrong (and statistically, we get it wrong far more than people realize), we have no business killing people. At least if we wrongly imprison someone we can compensate them when we figure out they are innocent, if we kill them they are dead forever.

Some of these right wing (I guess Republican, although I'm not convinced all Republicans feel this way) are just so hard to figure. One of their major issues of contention is to make abortion illegal.

I mean to say that, for some of the right wing, is the ONLY real seriously important issue on the agenda.

Interestingly, they love the death penalty and support it implicitly. They also believe everyone should have the right to bear arms of any kind. Never mind that killing with guns by accident is a problem and being able to grab a gun and quickly kill in a rage is a problem and gangs carrying guns and using them on the streets is a big problem in some cities.

But their major anger and intolerance seems to stem from their anger about women having the choice in the question of abortion.

They talk about not wanting government interference in their right to buy guns and carry them. They don't want the government telling them have to pay taxes. They don't want the government having oversight or any control over the insurance companies who make billions on their health care policies. And they bellyache about government intrusion in their lives as being a very bad thing.

They don't want to pay taxes and they don't want any government programs of the welfare type - they think everybody should be able to work, as they do. They don't want to pay for somebody elses mistakes. They don't want generations on welfare. They think it is unfair to have to give part of their salary to someone who is on the dole.

But they want the government to intrude in the case of a woman's choice.They want children or women who become impregnated without their consent and against their wishes, to be forced into carrying those embryos to full term. What happens after that to those women and those babies is not their concern. Although they say they know lots of people who want to adopt them.

How is that an answer? They want to make a law to force women to have babies in order to be baby mills for their friends who need babies? And to heck with the mothers and their lives. Because if that mother is unable to make a living for herself and her child because she lost her job when she became pregnant and can't get another one because she has a baby, that's just too bad. Don't ask the right wing to pay any taxes to come to her rescue. It's her problem. She shouldn't have had sex.

I am sorry, it just makes absolutely no sense to me and it seems heartless and cruel and convoluted. And did I mention stupid? It seems real, real, stupid.

Edited January 28, 201016 yr by BJean

Some of these right wing (I guess Republican, although I'm not convinced all Republicans feel this way) are just so hard to figure. One of their major issues of contention is to make abortion illegal.

I mean to say that, for some of the right wing, is the ONLY real seriously important issue on the agenda.

Allowing the killing of human life should be high on everyones agenda. We can't figure out how there are some in this country who allow it so freely.

Interestingly, they love the death penalty and support it implicitly.

That's because when you allow the death penalty it is used on the GUILTY, and when you allow abortion it is used on the INNOCENT.

They also believe everyone should have the right to bear arms of any kind. Never mind that killing with guns by accident is a problem and being able to grab a gun and quickly kill in a rage is a problem and gangs carrying guns and using them on the streets is a big problem in some cities.

When you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws have guns. People with the intent or ability within them to kill others will use anything to kill them, they don't need a gun. If Joe Shmoe wants Suzy Q killed, he will get the job done with a knife. If the law were to take away weapons from the citizenry, then only those in authority and criminals will have them. This puts the regular law abiding citizen at a disadvantage and allows for government control and criminal action without defense to be used against you.As stated in the Second Amendment of our Constitution, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now come the arguments. Who are "the people?" What does "bear arms" mean? Does "the people" refer to the "well regulated militia?" Should our states still have "a well regulated militia?"

All these details make arguing difficult and keep many picky and persnickety people from seeing the truth. Self-defense is protected by law. The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And that right "shall not be infringed."

Why, then, is there still an argument?

If one or two students at Virginia Tech could have had concealed weapons, or if a classroom could have had a gun stashed under the teacher's podium, the massacre may have only been a one- or two-fatality incident, rather than a shooting spree that ended in suicide.

But their major anger and intolerance seems to stem from their anger about women having the choice in the question of abortion.

They talk about not wanting government interference in their right to buy guns and carry them. They don't want the government telling them have to pay taxes. They don't want the government having oversight or any control over the insurance companies who make billions on their health care policies. And they bellyache about government intrusion in their lives as being a very bad thing.

It's actually "TOO much intrusion" that we belly ache about. And, I could say that liberals want MORE intrusion as their answer to every problem.

They don't want to pay taxes and they don't want any government programs of the welfare type - they think everybody should be able to work, as they do. They don't want to pay for somebody elses mistakes. They don't want generations on welfare. They think it is unfair to have to give part of their salary to someone who is on the dole.

We want government to pare back on their spending and charity to others. This is true. We can't afford it. If we had a surplus of funds and we weren't going bankrupt, that would be a different story, but that's not the case. Sure, it's great to help the poor, but not if you are going to put you children and grandchildren into financial ruin because of it. This is what you liberals don't get. You just want to spend, spend, spend, and let the next person worry about where to get the money to repay it all. Then there are programs in the working that are soooooo wasteful and unnecessary, yet they continue on and on.

But they want the government to intrude in the case of a woman's choice.They want children or women who become impregnated without their consent and against their wishes, to be forced into carrying those embryos to full term. What happens after that to those women and those babies is not their concern. Although they say they know lots of people who want to adopt them.

We want life (all life) to be cherished and not abused or murdered.

How is that an answer? They want to make a law to force women to have babies in order to be baby mills for their friends who need babies?

NOT to be baby mills for our friends, but to save the lives of the babies being murdered.

And to heck with the mothers and their lives. Because if that mother is unable to make a living for herself and her child because she lost her job when she became pregnant and can't get another one because she has a baby, that's just too bad. Don't ask the right wing to pay any taxes to come to her rescue. It's her problem. She shouldn't have had sex.

I am sorry, it just makes absolutely no sense to me and it seems heartless and cruel and convoluted. And did I mention stupid? It seems real, real, stupid.

What's 'stupid' here is that people can't see past the mother and her dilemma of having an unwanted pregancy towards the innocent baby in the womb that is alive and hoping for a chance at life. THAT"S STUPID!!! HEARTLESS and CRUEL!!!Not to mention MURDEROUS and SINFUL!!!

I can't believe you actually used, if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Cool. I hadn't thought of that.

So it's fine with me if Sara Palin uses some high powered rifle to shoot animals from a helicopter. Because if she gets cross-ways with her government, she'll just pick up that rifle and hole up in some encampment and have her very own war. There have been plenty of examples of right wing extremists doing just that. And religious fanatics like Waco, for instance.

If we all were issued guns after an extensive course on the use of firearms and the safety of having firearms in your home, then I would not be opposed to them.

Right now, it sure feels like most of the folks who have lots of guns are a threat to me because their political viewpoints (right wing extremist) are the opposite of mine. So I'm not afraid of the government invading my land and taking it away. I'm afraid of people like Timothy McVeigh and kooks that love to sleep with a warm gun under their pillow.

The following is from "Bright-Sided" by Barbara Ehrenreich:

From 1979 to 2007, the share of pretax income going to the top 1% of American households ROSE by 7 points to 16%, while the share of income going to the bottom 80% fell by 7 percent. As David Leonhardt put it in the New York Times: It's as if every household in that bottom 80% is writing a check for $7000 every year and sending it to the top 1%.

How did the top 1% use their ballooning weath? On high yield investments, of course, but also on a level of consumption that might have stunned even the robber barons of old. They traveled in Lear Jets, maintained multiple homes, and hired whole staffs of personal employees, including people whose job it was to advise them on the best wines and art to invest in. Looking back from 2008 a writer in the business magazine Portfolio marveled at:

"the $34,000-a-night hotel rooms, the $175 gold-dusted Richard Nouveau hamburger at the Wall Street Burger Shoppe, the Algonquin Hotel's $10,000 martini on the rock (the rock in question: a jewelers-selected diamond): Conspicuous consumption didn't even begin to describe the you're-not-going-to-believe-this life style and work habits of the rapacious ubercapitalists who were replicating all over the world."

These people hire people to make sure they don't pay taxes, either. And it's not like they are working for a living. They get their wealth through investments and tax breaks. The 80% at the bottom are the workers who keep this country going.

And yet, it infuriates me that with the above going on, the conservative right beats up on the poor single working mom who just wants some help so she can improve her life. It just shows who they advocate for and how mean-spirited they are.

patty: "What's 'stupid' here is that people can't see past the mother and her dilemma of having an unwanted pregancy towards the innocent baby in the womb that is alive and hoping for a chance at life. THAT"S STUPID!!! HEARTLESS and CRUEL!!!Not to mention MURDEROUS and SINFUL!!!:mad2:"

So what I hear you saying is that the poor innocent baby in the womb who has some hope of a chance of a life absolutely trumps the life of a woman or girl who might die just so that baby has a hope of a chance of a life. That's the cruelest kick in the gut for women everywhere.

_

Cleo's, that's one of the more straight forward explanations of what's been going on than I've heard in a while.

And those same fat cats are responsible for taking their jobs (the ones who own corporations) out of the country. Why can't they understand that they've effectively cut off their nose to spite their face. That's what is so insidious about greed - the extent to which greed has become the standard in business in America -it has nearly brought this country to its' knees.

Let's hope that Obama's remarks last night addressing this very topic will have some effect. Perhaps bringing it out in the open in that very public forum, will give some of these people the conscicence that they are sorely lacking.

Cleo's, that's one of the more straight forward explanations of what's been going on than I've heard in a while.

And those same fat cats are responsible for taking their jobs (the ones who own corporations) out of the country. Why can't they understand that they've effectively cut off their nose to spite their face. That's what is so insidious about greed - the extent to which greed has become the standard in business in America -it has nearly brought this country to its' knees.

Let's hope that Obama's remarks last night addressing this very topic will have some effect. Perhaps bringing it out in the open in that very public forum, will give some of these people the conscicence that they are sorely lacking.

If your senators are democrats call them and tell them to support the jobs bill and healthcare reform with the provisions that the public wants and the financial reforms for wall street (small fee to get them to pay back ALL the taxpayer money) and DARE the republicans to filibuster these and then televise the filibuster. WOULD THAT BE TRANSPARENT ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE???