BJean

One of the things that I appreciated about the Catholic religion was that they said that if you go forth and sin but were you were sincerely sorry and had no intention of committing that sin again, and asked for forgiveness, you would be forgiven by God. But if you are sorry you sinned and ask for forgiveness and yet you go right out and commit the same sin again, it is not forgiven. You ain't foolin' God if you sin but do not actually intend to refrain from commiting that sin again. And it doesn't matter whether you've accepted Jesus as your savior or not. You're not going to automatically be handed an insurance policy that gets you into heaven if in your heart and soul you do not have the right intentions.

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.

Good to know patty. You support the death penalty for Mr. Roeder because he killed a man who does abortions, which you say kills innocent babies. Where does it all end? The bottom line for you is, killing is okay in some circumstances (that you've decided God will condone) but it is punishable by death in others.

And Cleo's, the Republicans in Texas have been a hot bed of corruption. It is very frustrating to learn of all the things that they did when Bush was the governor and later as president. Some of the most outrageous and nefarious men have been prosecuted, but most have not.

The Republican administration and congress did much worse than anything you have described patty. As have Republicans before them. As far as compromise is concerned, you obviously have never served on a board of directors or been a PTA president or served in any other capacity where compromise is the only way that progress can be made. Even in a marriage, compromise is the necessary component to keep things on an even kiel. But I'm sure you'll disagree with that. Since you have such a righteous life and marriage, I'm sure that God settles all disputes that you may have with your spouse.

Yes, that is true and the fact that someone would argue with that is just plain strange. Unless you take into account that the person saying it is grasping at straws to make excuses for someone with whom they share mean thoughts. Of course if you're mistaking what Reid said as being racist and you give them a pass, then that says a lot too. This whole line of thinking is screwed up. There's no sense in trying to explain the differences to someone who used the comparison in the first place. Of course she's going to defend her statement. And if you really look at what she's saying, you'll understand why she thinks they are comparable. She excuses them both. Do you think she's just being generous of spirit?

Oh I agree that it makes sense. But I don't honestly think that patty sees it that way.

Oh and as it bit John McCain because of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Forgot to mention poor old McCain.

patty: "As I read your post, I am laughing at how backwards you are. Bad people will eventuelly pay the piper. Those bad people will be paying with their jobs in November." patty was talking about my post that ended with a look back at Richard Nixon. Well as for the elections patty, you may well be right. Democrats might be losing their jobs. The Republicans will lie, cheat, steal, misrepresent and lie some more in order to buy a seat in congress. The Democrats are not willing to do that. So yeah, the Republicans might win their seats back. But I stand by my statement that they will pay the piper eventually. Their wicked behavior will wind up biting them like it bit Richard Nixon.

Wow, how surprising, no rebuttal for Cleo's post. If the middle class and poor people in this country don't think this is a signal of bad things to come for them, they don't understand much about big money. Corporations are not people!! Corporations are entities that are made up of many people (or sometimes a few) and often stockholders who vote. They are all simply interested in making money. That is their reason for being. Most of them do not have a conscience or a reason to be fair to their consumers. That's why government oversight came into being and if you don't understand that, I'm surprisedl. (Ooops, sorry I'm referring to Cleo's post about corporations, previous page)

Love your cartoon, Wendy!

There is no question in my mind that patty would vote for the death penalty for Scott Roeder if she were on his trial jury. How could she think any differently? Or is it like Iraq, where if the right wing extremists believe that a country might be a threat, they deserve to die and in God's eyes, bombing Iraq and killing people was the right thing to do. So if you put it in these terms, maybe patty will think that Scott Roeder is some kind of hero? Killing people to save other people - God's for it, eh?

Interesting information. I don't trust anything coming out of Fox though. I suspect that there is some kind of reverse psychology going on and that it will be followed with a backlash mentality that will ensure defeat of the issues and candidates they don't like. They are very good at what they do. Please understand that I don't mean what they do is good.

Right again. I like to think that the Democrats do not go to school on the Republican strategies because they have scruples that the Republicans lack. This morning they were saying that Nancy Pelosi stated that the health care bill will not pass in the time frame she promised because they have to take their time to be as fair as possible to both sides of the aisle. Barney Frank was saying that they definitely could not take a Senate vote until the new guy from Mass is on board because it wouldn't be fair. It is frustrating beyond belief to put up with the dishonesty and unfair dealings of the Republicans, and have our Democratic leaders turn around and defer to those folks' wishes. But, to be honest, I wouldn't be happy if our representatives in congress played that dirty. As I said once before, in my experience, bad people will eventually pay the piper. It might take a long time, but eventually lies, cheating and stealing catches up to you. And always in a very bad way. I think Richard Nixon is an example of that.

Yes I'm sure you're right. I think of the term TARP as being the bailout, financially of the banks. I am easily confused though so please keep me on track when I rant off in some presumptuous and incorrect direction. For the life of me I can't understand the logic of the right wingers. It just makes no sense at all. They hate paying taxes and bellyache about it in high pitched frustrated tones but then they defend tax cuts and incentives to large corporations and the wealthy. Which essentially means that they're presonally taking it in the gut so that the rich can get richer and they get a little poorer. They say it's that they just don't want taxes for anyone, but that's balderdash. We have to pay taxes to be able to have country that runs smoothly and takes care of the things that people demand from their goverment - such as being safe from threats from terrorists, and of course enjoying all the other benefits of living in a wonderful country.

And patty, regarding the banks, I wasn't saying that the banks should be taxed unfairly. In fact, I'm not sure where you got that. But my complaint is that they are not conducting business since getting the TARP money, as they should be.

Now not only will the fat cats be lobbying congressional members to ensure that they are protected, they'll be putting the same kind of information out to the general public. I sure hope this backfires on them. But I don't have much faith in the general public. We seem to be easily sucked in by their smooth talk and slick PR.

And I didn't say ALL banks - you said that. I just said "the" banks which was probably confusing. When people have a long record of employment with a solid company, they have saved up to make a 20% down payment, have a long record of paying their rent or mortgage and have done everything they need to do to prove that they are a good loan candidate, then the banks should be willing to offer a loan to them so that they can buy a house. This is what will get the housing industry back on track.

Regarding Pat Robertson, you said: "He wasn't very sensitive with his words..." Then you go on to say: "Just like you liberals overlooked Reid's racist remarks towards Obama because he endorsed his campaign and did so much for the african american people. )" Do you honestly, seriously believe that comparing anything that Reid said about President Obama's campaign equates to Pat Robertson proselyzing from our television screens? Do you honestly think that any liberal really cares what Reid said? Because he didn't insult and degrade an entire nation with his remarks and he doesn't tell all the world that he has a special relationship with God and he doesn't try to poselytize from the steps of a building in Washington. So I don't get the comparison. And for pete's sake, for Robertson to in any way send any kind of aid to Haiti, does not make his inflammatory remarks toward those people just disappear. He said them and that is what makes him a giant S.O.B. who leads people down a merry path that will get them nowhere good.

patty: "Let me just say that the majority of abortions are done because of inconvenience for the mother." First you said that. Then you didn't like it when I disagreed with you and so you said: "Let's just say that the majority of abortions are not done because of rape or incest." You make one big sweeping statement and then you change it to say what you REALLY meant? I think you meant what you said the first time. You can't prove it so you then post something that seems more acceptable because it is so general in nature. We all post things that we wish we could take back but I wish you wouldn't get so upset when we suggest that you are wrong when what you posted was wrong. You act like we're crazy for arguing with something you said because you've later decided you really didn't mean it. Well I think you did mean those things the way you posted them the first time. I think that you actually do believe that women have abortions for convenience and not out of necessity. And in the case of rape or incest or any other horrible cause for a girl or woman to become pregnant without her consent, you feel that the fertilized egg (because at that point in time it is mearly a fertilized egg - it is NOT a baby) deserves to get more consideration than the injured woman. You'd rather risk the life of the girl or woman than correct the damage that has been done to her.

patty: "Did I say God caused the weather there? Stop misenterpreting what I say, or adding to it. I said he uses calamities (bad things that happen to people) to draw them to him. When you go through a terrible thing, who do you call upon? God. The first thing people say when there is an accident is "Oh God, help us!" When someone dies , we cry out to God." Oh for pete's sake. You were referring to earthquakes, natural disasters, hurricanes, etc. Now you are calling it "bad things that happen to people" and repremanding me for quoting you when certainly inferred that he caused the problem in Haiti and other "calamities" so he can " ...draw them to him" Don't you understand how someone could confuse what you've said to mean that you are saying that God causes natural disasters and things like earthquakes and hurricanes (bad weather) so we can be drawn to him?

patty: "Only God can take life from mankind. Him alone." patty: "...did I ever say they weren't forgivable? I said they weren't acceptable." Wait a minute, your posts are very confusing. First you say that only God can take life from mankind. Only him alone. Then in rebuttal to that you say what you said was that it was "unacceptable."

All banks didn't get TARP money so what? That is so not the point. Banks were bailed out so they would prevent the country from going down the tubes. If they don't make loans and keep the economy going, then we'll continue on a downward spiral. It's pretty simple really. Maybe I should explain it in Republican fairy tale terms. As an example: Trickle down: banks make lots of money from their fees and loan rates, which is good because when they make lots of profit and become very rich, they are eager to loan money which means that people can buy homes, cars and luxury items. Those manufactured goods create jobs. Middle class America gets to work and get paid and borrow money and buy stuff. The economy prospers. That's what Republicans want you to believe happens. Real life in America today: banks got really greedy, made bad, bad loans and decisions because of their greed. That created a housing bubble where the price of homes skyrocketed and an artificial market was created. People lost jobs because of their greedy employers farming the work overseas and across the borders. Then banks were stuck with people who could not pay their mortgages or for the money they were carrying on plastic. The bubble burst and we bailed the banks out because if the major banks had failed, we would have experienced a huge financial collapse - far worse than the one we did have. So banks got their money, they are still viable and healthy but now they are just sure that more people are going to default on their loans so they don't want to risk losing the money they're making and so they don't want to make loans. Sooo they don't make loans, people don't buy goods and services, homes, luxury items, etc., the manufacture of these things ceases and the housing market and retail market don't rebound. That may not be how anybody else in the world sees it, but that's how I see it.

patty: "But God uses these calamaties to draw those that have ignored him to himself." OMG so heartless! God doesn't control the weather. You remind me of the natives that worship the sun god.

pattyy: But I would like to note that you left out the rest of his talk about how he asks that people everywhere pray for them and give generously to them, and how his ministry plans to do the same. Also, about how his organization has helped the people of Haiti tremendously over the years, even before the earthquake hit them. So that stupid S.O.B. can say anything at all and he gets a pass because he says people should help those victims of an earthquake?