Obama's trip to Montana a big stage!

[BJean 16]

I have no doubt that many Americans wept the night we dropped bombs on Iraq. You're completely wrong to say that most people supported our invasion of Iraq. Most of us were not allowed to voice our opinions. It was another political war - like Vietnam. God did not tell George Bush to invade Iraq, of that I am sure. And you can't truly believe that unless you've decided that Dick Cheney is God - something that I am sure Cheney and Bush would wholeheartedly endorse.

And I resent your earlier claim that President Obama believes in abortion. President Obama believes in a woman's right to choose - that is the law of the land. He is our chief enforcer. He doesn't want or plan to make any decisions for women in regard to abortion. But he should always support laws that keep women from being discriminated against. And that is his position with regard to abortion. He believes that it is a decision that a woman should make, not the government.

Our government should not be in the business of passing laws based on theology. The laws need to protect all citizens, regardless of race, creed (religion) or national origin, etc. That includes homosexuals. Government should never bar or exclude homosexuals from entering into a legal marriage. They are entitled to be married under the law the same as heretosexual couples. And this legal argument will be resolved soon, I hope.

If your church does not believe in homosexual marriages or abortion, since you're a member of that church, I'd expect you to support your church's tenets. Or if you simply believe that the Bible is God's word and it says that women shouldn't have abortions, then you shouldn't have one if that is what you believe. But that has nothing to do with people who believe differently than you.

And I do not believe that it is within your rights to try to ban abortion or marriage for other people based on your beliefs. It is not okay for individuals to take the law into their own hands and to try to prevent other people from being able to do something that is legal.

Religious wars are steeped in that kind of behavior.

[KartMan 58]

Do you have a problem with war? Because if your neighbor was trying to take your home and your property, what would you do? Allow it? Or fight for your right to own it? Yes, the effects of war are terrible, but they are needed sometimes.

Sorry, maybe I’m not very smart because I seem to have missed something…

At what point was our “neighbor” (which I’m guessing would be Iraq in your analogy) trying to “take” our home or our property:confused:? How many times do you have to hear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never did anything that warranted our invasion? Sure Saddam was a $hithead, a brutal dictator, and a horrible leader of his country, but he was on a long list of despots around the world. It is no more right for us to take them out than it was our place to take him out.

I served 6 years in the US military (back when Saddam was our friend because he was fighting our other enemy Iran) and was honorably discharged when my enlistment was up. Having proudly worn the uniform of my country, I think I have a unique right to say yes, I do have a problem with war. To clarify, I have a problem with pointless wars that serve no purpose other than to satisfy the personal ambitions of the politicians that wage them. I am especially angered when those same politicians use lies and half truths to take our soldiers into war and to soil our reputation on the world stage.

The effects of war are not just “terrible”, they are horrific and long lasting. Thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqis have died in this pointless war and for what? We killed a low life aging dictator (Saddam) and lost the most hated terrorist of our generation (Bin Laden). I ask you Patty, what part of that was “needed”?

[pattygreen 5]

I have no doubt that many Americans wept the night we dropped bombs on Iraq. You're completely wrong to say that most people supported our invasion of Iraq. Most of us were not allowed to voice our opinions. It was another political war - like Vietnam. God did not tell George Bush to invade Iraq, of that I am sure. And you can't truly believe that unless you've decided that Dick Cheney is God - something that I am sure Cheney and Bush would wholeheartedly endorse.

You talk as if Cheney had a 'personal' grudge against Iraq or something. They didn't make the decision to go to war with that country for any reason except that they and everyone else in charge of making decisions felt it was the right thing to do at that time.

And I resent your earlier claim that President Obama believes in abortion. President Obama believes in a woman's right to choose - that is the law of the land. He is our chief enforcer. He doesn't want or plan to make any decisions for women in regard to abortion. But he should always support laws that keep women from being discriminated against. And that is his position with regard to abortion. He believes that it is a decision that a woman should make, not the government.

And I resent that you feel it is okay to enforce laws that give women the right to murder. We don't enforce any other laws in this country that gives anyone the right to take someone elses life, and we shouldn't allow women to be able to do it just because that life is within her. That's how I feel and I'm not alone on this issue. This is a small facet of why so many are against Obama's public option plan. It gives women that right on the tax payers dollar. We will not stand for that. If they want to do their dirty deed of abortion, let them pay for it themselves. It is unfair to force the rest of the public to finance something that we are adamantly opposed to morally. There are so many who will tell you that the funding of abortions isn't in there, but they will, mark my words, will sneak it in there through some other wording if it ever gets passed. Because this is how the liberals are. They could give a crap about the way the rest of us feel about the murdering of the unborn and they say "We know better." They feel that those who believe in God's word that says it is wrong are just living in a fairy tale world if they believe that, and "we're going to give the public what we feel is right for women."

Our government should not be in the business of passing laws based on theology. The laws need to protect all citizens, regardless of race, creed (religion) or national origin, etc. That includes homosexuals. Government should never bar or exclude homosexuals from entering into a legal marriage. They are entitled to be married under the law the same as heretosexual couples. And this legal argument will be resolved soon, I hope.

I disagree. If homosexuals want to make a committment to one another that is likened to the vows made to God in the marriage ceremony that God ordained and set up for a man and a woman together, then they can make up their own title for it and say their vows to their own God or to themselves or whoever. But the term Marriage is meant for a man and a woman. They had a name for thir committment once. It was call "Civil Union". Why don't they keep it? Because it isn't enough for them to just have a civil union. They want the "Christian" world to recognize them as equal to them, and they aren't equal in the sense of marriage. We will never go against what God says and call it okay to do commit the acts that they do with one another, for it is wrong in God's eyes. That would be like asking us to condone any other sin that is out there, and we will not do that. It will never be acceptable to those who truely believe in God and his words. BTW, you stated that they are "entitled". Show me in the Constitution where it says that marriage is a right. It's not. Marriage is a religious institution that God ordained.

If your church does not believe in homosexual marriages or abortion, since you're a member of that church, I'd expect you to support your church's tenets. Or if you simply believe that the Bible is God's word and it says that women shouldn't have abortions, then you shouldn't have one if that is what you believe. But that has nothing to do with people who believe differently than you.

Oh really? What if there is a man who believes it is perfectly okay to have sex with a ten year old. So, for him, since he 'believes' it's fine, it should be none of your business? There should be no law against it? What if there is a person who feels it is okay to have a sibling relationship. So, for them it is okay? And there should be no law against it? You see, you want to make laws according to what "you" feel is acceptable. Where do we get these moral standards anyway? From the beginning. God made the rules and the laws and mankind has been following them ever since. As mankind gets more and more depraved over time, they lower the standards and make 'sin' more and more acceptable. God prophecied that there will come a time, and I believe we are seeing it now, when mankind will call what is right "wrong" and what is wrong "right".

And I do not believe that it is within your rights to try to ban abortion or marriage for other people based on your beliefs. It is not okay for individuals to take the law into their own hands and to try to prevent other people from being able to do something that is legal.

I never said it was.

Religious wars are steeped in that kind of behavior.

.............................................................

[pattygreen 5]

Sorry, maybe I’m not very smart because I seem to have missed something…

I asked her if she had something against war. (Not the Iraq war in particular.)

[BJean 16]

Ah but Patty, we were discussing the Iraq war. That was the context in which you asked your question. This kind of attempt to side step the issue and not take responsibility for what you've posted is what keeps you from having the kind of credibility that you obviously seek.

[BJean 16]

patty: "And I resent that you feel it is okay to enforce laws that give women the right to murder. We don't enforce any other laws in this country that gives anyone the right to take someone elses life, and we shouldn't allow women to be able to do it just because that life is within her."

BJean: Wrong. Just because you've decided that the cells growing inside a woman are a complete and full human being with all the rights and privileges of every American, doesn't mean it is so. In fact, that union of a sperm and an egg are NOT a human being. It does not have the right to exist at the expense of the woman whose egg became fertilized against her wishes.

Perhaps there are instances where women are irresponsible and have unprotected sex without a care in the world. But that is not the only scenario and the government should never be in the business of having tribunals where they decide when a woman has been taken advantage of or when she was not. This is a personal issue. And it is not YOUR personal issue unless you are the one who is impregnated. To deny poor women the right to have a procedure that is legal under the law, is discrimination and it is wrong for America.

You are in the minority on this issue. And you are wrong. And the Democrats are no more capable or likely to sneak in a line on a bill that would permit government paid abortions for poor folks than the Republicans are for sneaking a line in on a bill that would provide for insurance companies to continue to be the primary decision-makers in our medical care.

Furthermore, a "marriage" that is required to have government documented papers, that allows for certain rights and privleges in our society under the law, cannot be a legal right that is denied to people because of their sexual orientation.

If a church has a tenet that says that homosexuals cannot be married in their church, that is a whole other issue. No one is requiring churches to either marry homosexuals or not marry homosexuals. Churches are immune to the anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately.

If churches were not allowed to speak out and endorse breaking the law, encourage their congregation to break the law in fact, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I believe that churches that support demonstrating against abortion, that endorse certain political candidates and further become active politically and rail against the government and its' laws, should not be able to be tax-free organizations. They should be identified as what they are - organizations that are political in nature and in actions. They should be treated like all the other political entities (that do not pose as churches) and transparency should be assured by government oversight.

So it's okay with me if your group wants to rail against the government and demonstrate outside an abortion clinic or insist that we kill people who have been convicted of crimes or get involved in demonstrating, as a group, against all kinds of governmental actions and laws, but just don't go be calling it a church and expect to be treated differently than the GOP or its' Democratic counterpart.

[KartMan 58]

Patty: Once again, the civil rights era needed to be changed because their was no sin in the color of your skin. The sin was in the way white people enslaved black people. The gay movement doesn't need changing of our laws because what they want is sinful. I still don't understand what you don't get about that. For this is not the first time you have compared slavery with homosexuality. Slavery was wrong and needed correcting. If we allow gay marriages, that would be wrong and then that would need correcting as well.

It’s not that I don’t “get It” Patty, it’s that I “don’t believe it”. I totally “get” that you believe that that homosexuality is a sin, and I adamantly “believe” you are wrong – not just because I don’t believe in sin, but because I think most of them are gay because they are born that way and I am totally fine with that. Let me correct one more thing for you. I have not nor would I ever “compare” slavery with homosexuality. What I have done is draw a comparison between the bigotry and hatred of the racists that perpetuated the injustices of slavery and the civil rights era to the homophobic bigots of today. In my opinion there is no difference in the fairness of allowing gays to marry than in breaking the shackles of racism in last century that allowed people of different races to marry.

One more thing to clear up so you don’t think I have some personal agenda. I myself am not gay, nor can I say that I have any close friends that are gay (only casual acquaintances) so I don’t have an agenda form that perspective. My strong feelings on the matter are derived strictly from the unfair treatment and injustices of the anti-gay movement.

[KartMan 58]

It's a shame that you have rejected the one who made you in the first place. My heart goes out to you, because by doing so, you are missing out on a truely loving relationship with him. "Religion" is a dividing source, but being born again is not religion, it's a relationship with God without the interference of organized facilities.

I’m pretty sure my parents made me, and I haven’t rejected them in the least. Please, don’t mourn for me. I am perfectly content with my beliefs (or disbeliefs). I’m also resigned to the fact that I might be wrong and am willing to bear the consequences of that as well – are you?

[KartMan 58]

Not true, our war with Iraq came from the inside out - from the closed chambers of Cheney & Rumsfeld who told bush what to do. Then they did a very effective job of selling it to the American people by a series of lies - first by connecting it to 9/11 (it wasn't and we weren't attacked by Iraq) and then the lies about WMD's and the imminent dangers of chemical warfare (remember how they hung Powell out there with some vial of poison to show?) and the mushroom cloud? The country and thus the American people were reeling from 9/11 and willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt - but as these lies unraveled, the people saw the Iraqi war for the big lie it was.

As far as who voted for it - well the republicans made it very clear that those who voted against it would be branded unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists. But I am so proud that Obama and the late Ted Kennedy voted against it.

Just a minor point of clarification, Obama openly opposed the Iraq war but he was not in the US Senate at the time so he couldn’t actually vote against it (Ted Kennedy did vote against it). I can’t really fault the ignorance of those that did vote for it now tough. They (along with the American people and the UN) were lied to by the other branch of government about almost everything that led up to the war. If they did oppose it they would have appeared stupid or unpatriotic at the time.

[KartMan 58]

Patty: You talk as if Cheney had a 'personal' grudge against Iraq or something. They didn't make the decision to go to war with that country for any reason except that they and everyone else in charge of making decisions felt it was the right thing to do at that time.

Wow, really? If you really believe that then there really is no hope for you.

Patty: This is a small facet of why so many are against Obama's public option plan. It gives women that right on the tax payers dollar. We will not stand for that. If they want to do their dirty deed of abortion, let them pay for it themselves. It is unfair to force the rest of the public to finance something that we are adamantly opposed to morally. There are so many who will tell you that the funding of abortions isn't in there, but they will, mark my words, will sneak it in there through some other wording if it ever gets passed. Because this is how the liberals are.

Just curious, have you ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? Maybe instead of screaming about what the nasty sneaky liberals “might” put in the bill, you could take a look at an existing law that many (including Obama) have said would still take precedence. I know it’s easier to paint a picture of a boogieman, unfortunately the current set of facts don’t support your argument.

Patty: I disagree. If homosexuals want to make a committment to one another that is likened to the vows made to God in the marriage ceremony that God ordained and set up for a man and a woman together, then they can make up their own title for it and say their vows to their own God or to themselves or whoever. But the term Marriage is meant for a man and a woman. They had a name for thir committment once. It was call "Civil Union". Why don't they keep it? Because it isn't enough for them to just have a civil union. They want the "Christian" world to recognize them as equal to them, and they aren't equal in the sense of marriage. We will never go against what God says and call it okay to do commit the acts that they do with one another, for it is wrong in God's eyes. That would be like asking us to condone any other sin that is out there, and we will not do that. It will never be acceptable to those who truely believe in God and his words. BTW, you stated that they are "entitled". Show me in the Constitution where it says that marriage is a right. It's not. Marriage is a religious institution that God ordained.

If all of the rights and benefits of marriage were purely religious, then your argument might have merit. The problem is that Marriage is an institution that is recognized by government and companies. That recognition comes with benefits and rewards for the people that are married. Excluding a class from obtaining those benefits is discriminatory. You are being disingenuous when you say that they want a “Christian” world to recognize them. First, I would remind you that the concept of marriage is not the exclusive property of the Christian world. Second, I would say that they want the rights afforded to other married couples more than any religious recognition. As for marriage being a right or not, I would say to you then to take away all the advantages then. Fairness under the law is a right under the constitution.

Patty: Oh really? What if there is a man who believes it is perfectly okay to have sex with a ten year old. So, for him, since he 'believes' it's fine, it should be none of your business? There should be no law against it? What if there is a person who feels it is okay to have a sibling relationship. So, for them it is okay? And there should be no law against it? You see, you want to make laws according to what "you" feel is acceptable. Where do we get these moral standards anyway? From the beginning. God made the rules and the laws and mankind has been following them ever since. As mankind gets more and more depraved over time, they lower the standards and make 'sin' more and more acceptable. God prophecied that there will come a time, and I believe we are seeing it now, when mankind will call what is right "wrong" and what is wrong "right".

This is a ridiculous and pointless argument. You can’t compare homosexuality with pedophilia. The homosexual couple we are discussing are consenting adults. Pedophilia is a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To even go down that road is nothing more than a sign of homophobia.

[KartMan 58]

crap

I lost another morning to LBT R&R

I'm tired now:sleep:

[KartMan 58]

patty: "And I resent that you feel it is okay to enforce laws that give women the right to murder. We don't enforce any other laws in this country that gives anyone the right to take someone elses life, and we shouldn't allow women to be able to do it just because that life is within her."

BJean: Wrong. Just because you've decided that the cells growing inside a woman are a complete and full human being with all the rights and privileges of every American, doesn't mean it is so. In fact, that union of a sperm and an egg are NOT a human being. It does not have the right to exist at the expense of the woman whose egg became fertilized against her wishes.

Perhaps there are instances where women are irresponsible and have unprotected sex without a care in the world. But that is not the only scenario and the government should never be in the business of having tribunals where they decide when a woman has been taken advantage of or when she was not. This is a personal issue. And it is not YOUR personal issue unless you are the one who is impregnated. To deny poor women the right to have a procedure that is legal under the law, is discrimination and it is wrong for America.

You are in the minority on this issue. And you are wrong. And the Democrats are no more capable or likely to sneak in a line on a bill that would permit government paid abortions for poor folks than the Republicans are for sneaking a line in on a bill that would provide for insurance companies to continue to be the primary decision-makers in our medical care.

Furthermore, a "marriage" that is required to have government documented papers, that allows for certain rights and privleges in our society under the law, cannot be a legal right that is denied to people because of their sexual orientation.

If a church has a tenet that says that homosexuals cannot be married in their church, that is a whole other issue. No one is requiring churches to either marry homosexuals or not marry homosexuals. Churches are immune to the anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately.

If churches were not allowed to speak out and endorse breaking the law, encourage their congregation to break the law in fact, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I believe that churches that support demonstrating against abortion, that endorse certain political candidates and further become active politically and rail against the government and its' laws, should not be able to be tax-free organizations. They should be identified as what they are - organizations that are political in nature and in actions. They should be treated like all the other political entities (that do not pose as churches) and transparency should be assured by government oversight.

So it's okay with me if your group wants to rail against the government and demonstrate outside an abortion clinic or insist that we kill people who have been convicted of crimes or get involved in demonstrating, as a group, against all kinds of governmental actions and laws, but just don't go be calling it a church and expect to be treated differently than the GOP or its' Democratic counterpart.

Well said BJean, I couldn’t agree more. I particularly like the discussion about allowing the bigots to practice their bigotry freely from within the confines of their own group. I am a big advocate for free speech. Unfortunately, a side effect of free speech is that people are allowed to spew hate. Fortunately, even they do though they are often the only ones that choose to hear their own voices. The neo-Nazis, skinheads, Farrakhan, and other bigots are allowed to say what they want – I don’t think that freedom has made them much stronger. In fact, you could make the argument that in saying their beliefs out loud they have Enlightened people on how narrow-minded and hateful they truly are.

[Goal150 0]

Shut up you bigoted racist and get a life! I bet you are white and if it was a white man in the white house you would not be posting this crap. Bush bankrupted the nation by going to irag when there were no weapons . Go have a casserole or something!

[pattygreen 5]

Bjean: To deny poor women the right to have a procedure that is legal under the law, is discrimination and it is wrong for America.

They may have the procedure, because it is lawful to do so here. But to force others, especially those who feel it is murder, to pay for it is what we don't want and don't agree upon.

[KartMan 58]

Bjean: To deny poor women the right to have a procedure that is legal under the law, is discrimination and it is wrong for America.

They may have the procedure, because it is lawful to do so here. But to force others, especially those who feel it is murder, to pay for it is what we don't want and don't agree upon.

I don’t believe torture is right and it is certainly not legal, yet I was forced to pay for that…