First Lady now requires 26 servants

[Cleo's Mom 257]

These radical right wing extremists are like terrorists in that they help to incite violence with their constant hate talk.

Oh brother!!.... Oh my Goodness , Terrorists!!! What should we do?:thumbup: Give me a break! If you feel that any person who opposes what Obama is doing in the WH is a terrorist and a hater, then you liberals were terrorists and haters when you opposed what Bush did. But I happen to know that your opposition to Bush didn't make you a terrorist or a hater. It just made you different in your views. Someone needs to mature a little. The liberals and the conservatives are both human beings who happen to think drastically in opposition to each other. IMO, the conservative is closer to thinking the way that God has outlined for government to be in the bible. They are usually against abortion and gay marriage due to their sinfulness. They are most likely Christians, but not all. They tend to stand up for what is morally right as oppposed to what is popular or immoral. Liberals tend to have an anything goes attitude and usually don't consider the 'cost' of things. They are spend thrifts and like to be taxed. They seem to love government growth and intervention in the lives of the people. So, the only thing that seperates a liberal and a conservaitive is their mindset. Both are human beings, not terrorists. (Do I need to show you the KILL Bush protestor signs once again?)

No liberal talk show host encouraged protesters to arm themselves when they went to rallies. No liberal preacher preached from the pulpit that he wanted Bush to die. I am talking about those in the mainstream media - who have an audience - who get paid to say what they say.

Now, as far as what God would want. Well, I think he would want us to help our fellow man. And the democratic party is the party of the comman man. The democrats have always helped the least among us. That is in the bible. The democratic party is responsible for (among other things)

-the 40 hour work week

-mandatory overtime

-child labor laws

-workplace safety laws

-black lung benefits

-laws for food and Water safety

-social security, medicare and medicaid

-aid to families with dependent children

-disability laws

-special education laws

-the family medical leave

-the Lilly Ledbetter Act

The democrats supported workers right to unionize and unions are what created the vast middle class in this country that has supported this country for the last 60 -70 years.

Do you ever watch shows about what life was like when there wasn't any middle class? There was the big mansion on the hill. That belonged to the factory owner. He was a republican. Then below were company owned homes where the workers lived or they lived in shacks. Their working conditions were deplorable, unsafe and many died in work related accidents or later from things like black lung. If they lived in a company house, they had to shop in the company store. You know that song? "And I owe my soul to the company store?" That was life before the unions.

The democratic party supports labor and unions because without them there isn't a level playing field. CEO's get to negotiate their contracts - why shouldn't the workers?

The democratic party is the party of family values because they don't just talk the talk like the republicans do but they help to pass bills that actually help families.

And do you really want to claim that republicans are more moral than democrats? Do you really want the laundry list of the immoral acts the MANY, MANY republican hypocrites have been involved in? I will be happy to provide them if necessary.

My view of republicans is this. There are the 3 R's of republicanism: rich, racist and redneck. Now the rich are the haves and they make it their life's work to make sure that others don't get what they have (eg. healthcare) and the racists and rednecks just hate all people of color, gays, women's rights and anyone who isn't a white male. They support the money, wall street, the big corporations and reject any attempts to regulate any of this.

Here are some examples:

George Allen- republican - calling a person of color - Macacaw

Bob McDonnell - republican (running for VA governor)- saying working women are detrimental to the family and opposes contraception for unmarried people.

Sen John Kyl (R-Ariz.) - questioned why maternity care was in the healthcare bill because he said "I don't need it"

The National Republican Congressional Committee - said this about Nancy Pelosi (after she said Gen McCrystal should view his opinions through the chain of command): "The taxpayers should hope that Gen. McCrystal puts Nancy Pelosi in her place." ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?? IN HER PLACE? Languge used is very telling. This is a put down to women - where exactly is their place? - barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Sec'y Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Jones said the same thing about McCrystal but did the NRCC say anything about them? No, because they're men. And your language about "knocking Obama down a peg or two" is also telling. Like I said before - it's a slightly more cleaned up version of uppity.

Since Ronald Reagan and especially since Bush - the republican party has gone much farther to the right and has become increasingly mean-spirited. That is why so many people (before the 2008 election) who were independent or republican switched to the democratic party.

[pattygreen 5]

It's not just Roe vs Wade, it's right verses wrong, morality vs immorality, good vs evil, civilization vs anarchy. We seem to be engaged in a cultural war for the hearts and minds of the American people. The radical left considers the conservative bible-believing, born again christians and the church they attend the enemy. And why? Because whether they like it or not, we are the keepers of morality for our society. And society not only has a right, but a responsibility to impose a collective sense of morality. It's not hatred from which we opperate, but conscience. In all good conscience, we cannot approve of the liberals policys. The average liberal supports a womans right to murder her unborn baby. The average liberal supports the sinful acts of men having sex with men and women having sex with woman and even to go so far as to desicrate God's holy ordinance that he set up for a man and a woman, called marriage. The average liberal is okay with stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. (stealing is never okay, BTW) This is exactly what Obama means when he says to 'spread the wealth around'. Thievery is thievery, no matter how you look at it. Liberals don't seem to mind all the spending and indebtedness going on in Washington, despite the fact that God says to be a good steward of your money. I tend to feel that most (not all) liberalist thinking is immoral and contrary to what God deems appropriate. I could go on and on about the liberalist's immoral views on controversial things, but I won't waste your time. You know what I mean. The conservative mind tends to be more moral and bible believing. I will admit that the church needs to acknowledge its part in the moral decline of our Nation and ask God to forgive us for not preventing this tidal wave of unbelief that has engulfed this great land. We stood by and allowed the liberal unbelievers to take God gradually out of America and replace him with the God of 'self'. We are a nation of conflict, and the conflict is over values.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It's not just Roe vs Wade, it's right verses wrong, morality vs immorality, good vs evil, civilization vs anarchy. We seem to be engaged in a cultural war for the hearts and minds of the American people. The radical left considers the conservative bible-believing, born again christians and the church they attend the enemy. And why? Because whether they like it or not, we are the keepers of morality for our society. And society not only has a right, but a responsibility to impose a collective sense of morality. It's not hatred from which we opperate, but conscience. In all good conscience, we cannot approve of the liberals policys. The average liberal supports a womans right to murder her unborn baby. The average liberal supports the sinful acts of men having sex with men and women having sex with woman and even to go so far as to desicrate God's holy ordinance that he set up for a man and a woman, called marriage. The average liberal is okay with stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. (stealing is never okay, BTW) This is exactly what Obama means when he says to 'spread the wealth around'. Thievery is thievery, no matter how you look at it. Liberals don't seem to mind all the spending and indebtedness going on in Washington, despite the fact that God says to be a good steward of your money. I tend to feel that most (not all) liberalist thinking is immoral and contrary to what God deems appropriate. I could go on and on about the liberalist's immoral views on controversial things, but I won't waste your time. You know what I mean. The conservative mind tends to be more moral and bible believing. I will admit that the church needs to acknowledge its part in the moral decline of our Nation and ask God to forgive us for not preventing this tidal wave of unbelief that has engulfed this great land. We stood by and allowed the liberal unbelievers to take God gradually out of America and replace him with the God of 'self'. We are a nation of conflict, and the conflict is over values.

Paying taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilzed society. People pay taxes according to their means and the money is distributed according to need. Do you think Obama invented this? The conservatives with the big tax cuts to the rich under Reagan and Bush took from the middle class and gave to the rich. Of course the only people who support this are the rich. Like I said, the haves. And that was stealing, BTW!!!

Do you not watch the news or read the paper? Have you not seen the moral decline within the republican party among it's elected members? Their straight and gay affairs? They vote against gay marriage, they vote against women's rights, they vote against a woman's right to choose and then they go out and commit immoral acts. They pontificate about family values and vote against increasing the minumum wage or child tax credits for daycare. Or against maternity care in healthcare. These things ARE family values.

You say you don't want government getting bigger and intruding on our lives. You call universal healthcare a big government take over. But apparently you don't mind the big government being in a woman's uterus or in people's bedrooms or in their doctor's office. That's okay. So you make allowances for big government when it suits your purpose.

People will have to judge for themselves what they consider moral and immoral. They have freedom of choice. And a free will. The religious right can tell its followers what to believe but when they try to inject their religion into government and say it is the one and only way - I have a problem with that.

[pattygreen 5]

Paying taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilzed society.

This is true, but there must be a limit to it. I am not opposed to paying taxes, but when things that are not essential are proposed, and especially during a recession, and they are borrowing money from other countries to meet the desires they have, this is wrong. Why should our taxes pay for things like a park in some state or a study on how flies fart? Each individual state needs to take care of their own desires and if they can't afford it, the rest of the nation shouldn't have to supply it for them. National government should not be funding such crap and especially when they are in big time DEBT!!!! Most, if not all, of the federally funded programs that were developed in the past are bankrupt. What makes you think a health care plan that the gov. wants to pass will not be the same? Is it their excellent record of success with other programs that convinces you? Or is it because Obama says so?

People pay taxes according to their means and the money is distributed according to need. Do you think Obama invented this? The conservatives with the big tax cuts to the rich under Reagan and Bush took from the middle class and gave to the rich. Of course the only people who support this are the rich. Like I said, the haves. And that was stealing, BTW!!!

It doesn't matter to me who is doing the stealing, or when the stealing was done. Like I said, the government is doing it and it is a crime. Some taxes are to be expected, but now they have crossed the line. Mostly because they are not only making the US slaves to those we are in debt to, but our future children and grandchildren will be paying for it. It was once billions we owed, now it is TRILLIONS. It is unsustainable!

Do you not watch the news or read the paper? Have you not seen the moral decline within the republican party among it's elected members? Their straight and gay affairs? They vote against gay marriage, they vote against women's rights, they vote against a woman's right to choose and then they go out and commit immoral acts.

EVERY man is a sinner. But it is the one who recognizes it that God has mercy upon. All of mankind will NOT be able to make it through a day without doing wrong. Everyone knows this, and the Christian knows it better than anyone else. It does not excuse anyone from their moral duty to teach righteousness or to

vote what is right. I liken it to a parent who tells their child not to curse, yet goes out and curses occasionally. They still stand by their decision that cursing is wrong, yet fail at keeping their own cursing at bay. We all do it.

They pontificate about family values and vote against increasing the minumum wage or child tax credits for daycare. Or against maternity care in healthcare. These things ARE family values.

They vote against it because if the liberal had their way, the government would pay for everything! There must be a balance, and we crossed that line miles and miles back. WE ARE IN DEBT!!!!!!! What don't you get about that? Is there anything that you don't want the government to pay for? I'm curious, is there? Maybe if the government would allow the people to put their priorities in place, they would. But whose going to refuse a government handout? Not too many people will. I know a person who works and gets daycare for free from the government. This person could afford to pay for her daycare, but why should she? The government says she is within the income guidelines. She parties all the time and sees more movies at the theater each week than I do. She spends more money on clothes than anyone I know. This is just one person, but you get the picture. The bible teaches that you need to work for your living.

You say you don't want government getting bigger and intruding on our lives. You call universal healthcare a big government take over. But apparently you don't mind the big government being in a woman's uterus or in people's bedrooms or in their doctor's office. That's okay. So you make allowances for big government when it suits your purpose.

Yes, I expect the government to protect the lives of ALL people, including the defensless unborn children that can't protect themselves! ...No, I don't want the government in anyones bedroom. People can do what they choose with their own bodies, God will deal with them about that.... And, yes, I want the government to protect the God ordained institution of Marriage. God made the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman who say their vows before Him, and I don't want any one group of people who feel it is okay to have sex with the same sex to desecrate what he set up as right and good. For it's NOT! Now, if they want to do that sinful deed, they certainly have their own free will to do so, but they should not expect this nation to condone it. Just as we should not condone any actions that God deems sinful.

People will have to judge for themselves what they consider moral and immoral. They have freedom of choice. And a free will.

True. Unbelievers in God will have to decide what they feel is moral or immoral, and believers in God have his word to tell them what is moral or immoral. The bible says that in the end times people will turn away from God and everything that God has deemed 'right' will be seen as wrong and everything that God deems 'wrong' will be seen as right in their eyes. There was a time when homosexuality would not even be 'talked' about for it was seen as such an abomination unto God, and rightly so. Today it is paraded in the streets. You see this as intolerance, I see this as obedience to God's word. I will always believe what God says about homosexuality and the practice of it. He does not change. I do not hate homosexual people. I hate what they do. It hurts God whenever anyone does what he calls sinful.

The religious right can tell its followers what to believe but when they try to inject their religion into government and say it is the one and only way - I have a problem with that.

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

[BJean 16]

patty I do not doubt that you believe everything you say. However please know that some of us believe just about everything you say is too extreme and too exclusionary. We're talking about politics and the government. You're talking about the Bible and God. We're on two different planes.

The government is guided by laws and rules. These rules were created so that we can live with each other in peace. God and the Bible do not have a corner on rules or laws. People who do not know God or the Bible still know right from wrong.

What you must not realize or accept is the fact that the government is in the business of protecting people's rights and freedoms and the Bible has no part in that. The Bible and God are a part of spirituality and/or religion. That is personal and each citizen is able to decide for him or herself what they believe with regard to religion.

However when it comes to living in this country and living in peace within our borders; getting along with each other on a daily basis; taking care not to infringe on others' rights to freedom and religious beliefs, none of that can be dictated strictly by one religion or the Bible. It is our government, the non-discriminatory laws created to protect each citizen, that must do that for us.

It is fine and good for you to believe what you believe and practice whatever religion you choose. And you should abide by those beliefs and be happy and rejoice in them. But you may not tell the rest of us that we must believe what you believe and worship the way you worship or believe in the Bible as a strictly true account of history or what God may or may not have said. You just cannot do that. Our laws prevent you from being able to do that. You must abide by our laws just as everyone else does.

For instance, your religion does not give you the right to say that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman because the Bible says so, except when you're referring to your religious beliefs.

But as it pertains to our governmental laws, marriage is between two people who cannot be discriminated against for any reason and therefore, the laws that govern marriage in this country should not exclude same sex marriages.

Now if your church doesn't believe in same sex marriage, they should not allow same sex couples to be wed in your church. The government does not prohibit your church from discriminating against people if that is what your religion teaches. That's the beauty of freedom of religion. You can believe that same sex marriage is wrong and live peacefully believing that. And no one can force you or your church to believe differently, according to our form of government.

But by the same token, you are not free to set your religious rules up within our government so as to discriminate against any segment of our population. It's against everything the founding fathers promised us and set forth in our Bill of Rights. If you wish to live in a country with a theocratic form of government, you're in the wrong place.

And we're all beating our heads against the wall having these political discussions when we're on a completely different plane. You're discussing religion, we're discussing government. They are mutually exclusive, which is as they should be.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

Paying taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilzed society.

This is true, but there must be a limit to it. I am not opposed to paying taxes, but when things that are not essential are proposed, and especially during a recession, and they are borrowing money from other countries to meet the desires they have, this is wrong.Like bush borrowing from China to pay for the unjustified Iraqi war? I mean I think paying for highways and clean Water is more important than paying for an unnecessary war. Why should our taxes pay for things like a park in some state or a study on how flies fart? Each individual state needs to take care of their own desires and if they can't afford it, the rest of the nation shouldn't have to supply it for them.States are not able to sustain all the things that are needed - like huge national parks. Or all the highways and clean water, and the list goes on..We need those things that our federal tax money can help provide. National government should not be funding such crap and especially when they are in big time DEBT!!!! Most, if not all, of the federally funded programs that were developed in the past are bankrupt. What makes you think a health care plan that the gov. wants to pass will not be the same? The CBO came out and said that the healthcare plan will REDUCE the deficit over the next 10 years but I forgot - you only believe them when they give the news that supports YOUR opinions. Is it their excellent record of success with other programs that convinces you? I guess I would rather look at the "success" (read: failure) of corporate america (wall street) whose greed got us in this economic mess to begin with. Or is it because Obama says so?

People pay taxes according to their means and the money is distributed according to need. Do you think Obama invented this? The conservatives with the big tax cuts to the rich under Reagan and Bush took from the middle class and gave to the rich. Of course the only people who support this are the rich. Like I said, the haves. And that was stealing, BTW!!!

It doesn't matter to me who is doing the stealing, or when the stealing was done. Like I said, the government is doing it and it is a crime.So you agree it was a crime to take from the middle class and give to the rich - because it was and the middle classes buying power went downhill which of course affected the economy and so on... Some taxes are to be expected, but now they have crossed the line. Mostly because they are not only making the US slaves to those we are in debt to, but our future children and grandchildren will be paying for it. It was once billions we owed, now it is TRILLIONS. It is unsustainable!

Do you not watch the news or read the paper? Have you not seen the moral decline within the republican party among it's elected members? Their straight and gay affairs? They vote against gay marriage, they vote against women's rights, they vote against a woman's right to choose and then they go out and commit immoral acts.

EVERY man is a sinner. But it is the one who recognizes it that God has mercy upon.When you say recognize - you mean the ones who got caught? All of mankind will NOT be able to make it through a day without doing wrong. Everyone knows this, and the Christian knows it better than anyone else. It does not excuse anyone from their moral duty to teach righteousness or to

vote what is right. I liken it to a parent who tells their child not to curse, yet goes out and curses occasionally. They still stand by their decision that cursing is wrong, yet fail at keeping their own cursing at bay. We all do it. So, it's okay to vote against gays while you're fooling around with young pages, or to talk about the sanctity of marriage while carrying on an affair.

They pontificate about family values and vote against increasing the minumum wage or child tax credits for daycare. Or against maternity care in healthcare. These things ARE family values.

They vote against it because if the liberal had their way, the government would pay for everything! The government doesn't pay the minimum wage - they just want it to be fair. There must be a balance, and we crossed that line miles and miles back. WE ARE IN DEBT!!!!!!! What don't you get about that? Is there anything that you don't want the government to pay for? Yes, vouchers for private schools, unnecessary wars, abstinence only education, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich.. I'm curious, is there? Maybe if the government would allow the people to put their priorities in place, they would. But whose going to refuse a government handout?We provide a safety net for our citizens. That's what separates us from third world countries. Not too many people will. I know a person who works and gets daycare for free from the government. This person could afford to pay for her daycare, but why should she? The government says she is within the income guidelines. She parties all the time and sees more movies at the theater each week than I do. She spends more money on clothes than anyone I know. This is just one person, but you get the picture.Unless she told you personally I don't know how you would know how much she spends on clothes and movies. But this offends you and the fact that our health insurance premiums help to pay the CEO $57,000 AN HOUR doesn't??? Or in my previous post where I listed how our tax dollars were misused by defense contractors - WAY more money than this woman would ever see in 1000 lifetimes. The bible teaches that you need to work for your living.

You say you don't want government getting bigger and intruding on our lives. You call universal healthcare a big government take over. But apparently you don't mind the big government being in a woman's uterus or in people's bedrooms or in their doctor's office. That's okay. So you make allowances for big government when it suits your purpose.

Yes, I expect the government to protect the lives of ALL people, including the defensless unborn children that can't protect themselves! You talk about how you want people to take care of themselves, make their own decisions, fend for themselves and take care of their own communities but in the case of women taking care of their own bodies - well here's where you want the power of the big government to step in - in one of the most intimate and personal ways...No, I don't want the government in anyones bedroom. People can do what they choose with their own bodies, God will deal with them about that.... And, yes, I want the government to protect the God ordained institution of Marriage. God made the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman who say their vows before Him, and I don't want any one group of people who feel it is okay to have sex with the same sex to desecrate what he set up as right and good. For it's NOT! Now, if they want to do that sinful deed, they certainly have their own free will to do so, but they should not expect this nation to condone it. Just as we should not condone any actions that God deems sinful.

Marriage is a civil contract, not religious. Our government considers people married not because of a religious ceremony but because of a civil union with a marriage license performed by a judge, etc..Saying vows before God is not necessary to be considered a marriage by state or federal government.

People will have to judge for themselves what they consider moral and immoral. They have freedom of choice. And a free will.

True. Unbelievers in God will have to decide what they feel is moral or immoral, and believers in God have his word to tell them what is moral or immoral. The bible says that in the end times people will turn away from God and everything that God has deemed 'right' will be seen as wrong and everything that God deems 'wrong' will be seen as right in their eyes. There was a time when homosexuality would not even be 'talked' about for it was seen as such an abomination unto God, and rightly so. Today it is paraded in the streets. You see this as intolerance, I see this as obedience to God's word. I will always believe what God says about homosexuality and the practice of it. He does not change. I do not hate homosexual people. I hate what they do. It hurts God whenever anyone does what he calls sinful.

I don't believe that gays choose their sexual orientation anymore than heterosexuals choose their orientation. Therefore, I think they should have the same marriage rights (legal) as any other couple.

The religious right can tell its followers what to believe but when they try to inject their religion into government and say it is the one and only way - I have a problem with that.

I think I have made very compelling and supportive arguments with examples in my last several posts. And I stand by them.

[pattygreen 5]

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

Paying taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilzed society.

This is true, but there must be a limit to it. I am not opposed to paying taxes, but when things that are not essential are proposed, and especially during a recession, and they are borrowing money from other countries to meet the desires they have, this is wrong.Like bush borrowing from China to pay for the unjustified Iraqi war?

You may feel that the war was unjustified, but when the decision to go to war was made, everyone felt it was the right one. Even if afterwards some changed their minds, and felt it was the wrong decision, it was then too late to turn things around. So, yes it is wrong to borrow money that you have no means to repay. No matter who does it.

I mean I think paying for highways and clean Water is more important than paying for an unnecessary war.

Why should our taxes pay for things like a park in some state or a study on how flies fart? Each individual state needs to take care of their own desires and if they can't afford it, the rest of the nation shouldn't have to supply it for them.States are not able to sustain all the things that are needed - like huge national parks. Or all the highways and clean water, and the list goes on..We need those things that our federal tax money can help provide.

If they can't pay for a park, then I feel they shouldn't have one. It costs nothing to walk through the natural woods. Highways and clean water are necessary for the life of mankind. Without water we can not survive. Without infrastructure we can not get to our jobs which will keep us fed and thus keep us alive. It's all about keeping priorities. If we did that, we would not be in debt. When someone can't purchase food, they cancel the cable bill to enable themselves to but food.

National government should not be funding such crap and especially when they are in big time DEBT!!!! Most, if not all, of the federally funded programs that were developed in the past are bankrupt. What makes you think a health care plan that the gov. wants to pass will not be the same? The CBO came out and said that the healthcare plan will REDUCE the deficit over the next 10 years but I forgot - you only believe them when they give the news that supports YOUR opinions.

Do you really believe that? If it's true that they can rduce the deficit, with health care, then why aren't they? We already have a senior health care public option called medicare, I don't see it reducing the deficit. As a matter of fact, it is exploding the deficit. Since when has the government rduced anything? Never!, so what makes you believe them this time?

Is it their excellent record of success with other programs that convinces you? I guess I would rather look at the "success" (read: failure) of corporate america (wall street) whose greed got us in this economic mess to begin with.

I believe that mankind has a better chance of correcting its failures than our government does. They have already started to see what overspending has done to this country and many are taking this time to clear their debt and save. The only ones NOT doing that is the government.

Or is it because Obama says so?

People pay taxes according to their means and the money is distributed according to need. Do you think Obama invented this? The conservatives with the big tax cuts to the rich under Reagan and Bush took from the middle class and gave to the rich. Of course the only people who support this are the rich. Like I said, the haves. And that was stealing, BTW!!!

It doesn't matter to me who is doing the stealing, or when the stealing was done. Like I said, the government is doing it and it is a crime.So you agree it was a crime to take from the middle class and give to the rich - because it was and the middle classes buying power went downhill which of course affected the economy and so on...

Yes, I agree.

Some taxes are to be expected, but now they have crossed the line. Mostly because they are not only making the US slaves to those we are in debt to, but our future children and grandchildren will be paying for it. It was once billions we owed, now it is TRILLIONS. It is unsustainable!

Do you not watch the news or read the paper? Have you not seen the moral decline within the republican party among it's elected members? Their straight and gay affairs? They vote against gay marriage, they vote against women's rights, they vote against a woman's right to choose and then they go out and commit immoral acts.

EVERY man is a sinner. But it is the one who recognizes it that God has mercy upon.When you say recognize - you mean the ones who got caught?

No, all christian sinners. If a true christian commits sin, they know it. The christians conscience is atune to God and what he deems sinful. The Christian knows right from wrong and when he commits a wrong, God's Holy Spirit convicts him of it.

All of mankind will NOT be able to make it through a day without doing wrong. Everyone knows this, and the Christian knows it better than anyone else. It does not excuse anyone from their moral duty to teach righteousness or to

vote what is right. I liken it to a parent who tells their child not to curse, yet goes out and curses occasionally. They still stand by their decision that cursing is wrong, yet fail at keeping their own cursing at bay. We all do it. So, it's okay to vote against gays while you're fooling around with young pages, or to talk about the sanctity of marriage while carrying on an affair.

Yes, just like we should all tell our children not to lie or cheat and we should all have a house rule that forbids lying and cheating, even though it is inevitable that we as parents will lie and cheat. It doesn't mean that it's right for us to lie. And of course everyone should be a good example, but let's face it, noone can do right. Even God tells us this.

They pontificate about family values and vote against increasing the minumum wage or child tax credits for daycare. Or against maternity care in healthcare. These things ARE family values.

They vote against it because if the liberal had their way, the government would pay for everything! The government doesn't pay the minimum wage - they just want it to be fair.

I wasn't talking about minimum wage, just all other expenses that the government pays for that the people should be payin themselves.

There must be a balance, and we crossed that line miles and miles back. WE ARE IN DEBT!!!!!!! What don't you get about that? Is there anything that you don't want the government to pay for? Yes, vouchers for private schools, unnecessary wars, abstinence only education, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich..

Finally, some things we can agree on. The government shouldn't pay for private schools or unnecessary wars, or any kind of sex education at all. (tax cuts for the rich is not spending) Parents and parents ONLY should teach their children about sex. Schools should ONLY teach academics. Parents have given the schools too much of their own job. When you take away a job that parents should be doing from them, they will let you have it. This has added to the lack of parental responsibility in this country.

I'm curious, is there? Maybe if the government would allow the people to put their priorities in place, they would. But whose going to refuse a government handout?We provide a safety net for our citizens. That's what separates us from third world countries.

The safety net is TOO large, and because of that the fish are falling through the holes in it.

Not too many people will. I know a person who works and gets daycare for free from the government. This person could afford to pay for her daycare, but why should she? The government says she is within the income guidelines. She parties all the time and sees more movies at the theater each week than I do. She spends more money on clothes than anyone I know. This is just one person, but you get the picture.Unless she told you personally I don't know how you would know how much she spends on clothes and movies. But this offends you and the fact that our health insurance premiums help to pay the CEO $57,000 AN HOUR doesn't???

Who said that doesn't offend me also? But just because or premiums help to pay high CEO salaries doesn't mean I want the government to take it over instead. Then our money will be transfered to more government programs and jobs and a higher cost of living.

Or in my previous post where I listed how our tax dollars were misused by defense contractors - WAY more money than this woman would ever see in 1000 lifetimes. The bible teaches that you need to work for your living.

You say you don't want government getting bigger and intruding on our lives. You call universal healthcare a big government take over. But apparently you don't mind the big government being in a woman's uterus or in people's bedrooms or in their doctor's office. That's okay. So you make allowances for big government when it suits your purpose.

Yes, I expect the government to protect the lives of ALL people, including the defensless unborn children that can't protect themselves! You talk about how you want people to take care of themselves, make their own decisions, fend for themselves and take care of their own communities but in the case of women taking care of their own bodies - well here's where you want the power of the big government to step in - in one of the most intimate and personal ways...

We will never agree on this one. I believe that an unborn baby has just as much a right to live as any other human being, and I believe that EVERY life should be protected from the crime of murder in every country. A person should take care of themself, and their community and make their own decisions like you said, unless it involves the killing of a seperate person. That's a whole nother topic and I will agree to disagree on abortion.

No, I don't want the government in anyones bedroom. People can do what they choose with their own bodies, God will deal with them about that.... And, yes, I want the government to protect the God ordained institution of Marriage. God made the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman who say their vows before Him, and I don't want any one group of people who feel it is okay to have sex with the same sex to desecrate what he set up as right and good. For it's NOT! Now, if they want to do that sinful deed, they certainly have their own free will to do so, but they should not expect this nation to condone it. Just as we should not condone any actions that God deems sinful.

Marriage is a civil contract, not religious. Our government considers people married not because of a religious ceremony but because of a civil union with a marriage license performed by a judge, etc..Saying vows before God is not necessary to be considered a marriage by state or federal government.

GOD ordained marriage and made the rules for it. It is a religious ordinance. Mankind made it a civil contract. If they want a civil contract, then let them, but the 'marriage' between a man and a woman is from God. If our government wants to recognize a civil union between 2 men or 2 women, they can call it anything but "marriage".

People will have to judge for themselves what they consider moral and immoral. They have freedom of choice. And a free will.

True. Unbelievers in God will have to decide what they feel is moral or immoral, and believers in God have his word to tell them what is moral or immoral. The bible says that in the end times people will turn away from God and everything that God has deemed 'right' will be seen as wrong and everything that God deems 'wrong' will be seen as right in their eyes. There was a time when homosexuality would not even be 'talked' about for it was seen as such an abomination unto God, and rightly so. Today it is paraded in the streets. You see this as intolerance, I see this as obedience to God's word. I will always believe what God says about homosexuality and the practice of it. He does not change. I do not hate homosexual people. I hate what they do. It hurts God whenever anyone does what he calls sinful.

I don't believe that gays choose their sexual orientation anymore than heterosexuals choose their orientation. Therefore, I think they should have the same marriage rights (legal) as any other couple.

We ALL most definitely choose our own actions. Having sex is an action that we can choose to participate in or choose to refrain from. It's just like gluttony. (something we can both relate to) It's a sin to overeat and cause your body to be unhealthy. Yet, we desire that food, and we eat even though we know God says it is wrong to eat to the point of gluttony. We and we alone choose whether to put that extra food in our mouths. "But we desire it" you say. Yes, but having a desire for it doesn't make it right. It doesn't mean we were born that way.

The religious right can tell its followers what to believe but when they try to inject their religion into government and say it is the one and only way - I have a problem with that.

I think I have made very compelling and supportive arguments with examples in my last several posts. And I stand by them.

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

[Cleo's Mom 257]

patty I do not doubt that you believe everything you say. However please know that some of us believe just about everything you say is too extreme and too exclusionary. We're talking about politics and the government. You're talking about the Bible and God. We're on two different planes.

The government is guided by laws and rules. These rules were created so that we can live with each other in peace. God and the Bible do not have a corner on rules or laws. People who do not know God or the Bible still know right from wrong.

What you must not realize or accept is the fact that the government is in the business of protecting people's rights and freedoms and the Bible has no part in that. The Bible and God are a part of spirituality and/or religion. That is personal and each citizen is able to decide for him or herself what they believe with regard to religion.

However when it comes to living in this country and living in peace within our borders; getting along with each other on a daily basis; taking care not to infringe on others' rights to freedom and religious beliefs, none of that can be dictated strictly by one religion or the Bible. It is our government, the non-discriminatory laws created to protect each citizen, that must do that for us.

It is fine and good for you to believe what you believe and practice whatever religion you choose. And you should abide by those beliefs and be happy and rejoice in them. But you may not tell the rest of us that we must believe what you believe and worship the way you worship or believe in the Bible as a strictly true account of history or what God may or may not have said. You just cannot do that. Our laws prevent you from being able to do that. You must abide by our laws just as everyone else does.

For instance, your religion does not give you the right to say that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman because the Bible says so, except when you're referring to your religious beliefs.

But as it pertains to our governmental laws, marriage is between two people who cannot be discriminated against for any reason and therefore, the laws that govern marriage in this country should not exclude same sex marriages.

Now if your church doesn't believe in same sex marriage, they should not allow same sex couples to be wed in your church. The government does not prohibit your church from discriminating against people if that is what your religion teaches. That's the beauty of freedom of religion. You can believe that same sex marriage is wrong and live peacefully believing that. And no one can force you or your church to believe differently, according to our form of government.

But by the same token, you are not free to set your religious rules up within our government so as to discriminate against any segment of our population. It's against everything the founding fathers promised us and set forth in our Bill of Rights. If you wish to live in a country with a theocratic form of government, you're in the wrong place.

And we're all beating our heads against the wall having these political discussions when we're on a completely different plane. You're discussing religion, we're discussing government. They are mutually exclusive, which is as they should be.

VERY well said, BJean. And these are the points I wanted to make but you said them so much better. Especially the point that we're talking about politics and religion - not God and the bible.

I have the facts on my side and the other side only has hypocrisy. On every front - political and moral. Just today I read that the republicans oppose stricter regulations on banks and voted against a law to make it a crime to attack/kill someone based on their sexual orientation.

Now, on a high note: Congratulations to President Barack Obama on receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. What a great honor and reflective of the world view that our country is finally being led by someone with brains and an understanding of the world around him.

I'm sure all those who mocked Pres. Obama for being unable to bring the Olympics to America (and cheered because of it) will find something to criticize him for for receiving this prestigious award. Had they found out he was in contention and lost - well, that would have added fuel to their Obama hating fire.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

If people initially supported the Iraqi war it was for two reasons:

1) they were lied to about WMD - mushroom clouds, chemical warfare. We were in imminent danger, etc.. All false

2) they were told that to oppose the war would make them unpatriotic and siding with the terrorists

The legitimacy of this war quickly unraveled and yet 6 years later we are still there costing us taxpayers billions of dollars we didn't have and borrowed from China. Not to mention the most important cost: 4000+ lives.

Maintaining national parks is in our collective interest. It helps preserve some very pristine land that otherwise would be sold to the highest bidder and raped for profit. I am happy to have my federal tax dollars going for this.

Yes, I believe the CBO because they have the numbers and facts. The healthcare bill would help rein in the skyrocketing costs of healtcare premiums and that would help people's pocketbooks and they would have more money to spend. If we don't rein in the healthcare premiums, then our economy won't be able to sustain it much longer.

A government run healthcare option would be non-profit (as opposed to the obscene profits of private healthcare) with much lower administrative costs (no CEO's making $57,000/hour) and this competition would make private insurance clean up their act and LOWER costs for everyone. Private colleges have to compete with publically funded colleges and they do just fine.

God doesn't enter into our society's definition of marriage. Just by your saying it doesn't make it so. If someone gets a marriage license and gets married by a judge, they are considered married. No religious ceremony is needed. And all the legal rights of marriage are afforded to them. And I believe that these legal rights should be extended to gays.

Those who oppose gay marriage also oppose sex outside of marriage but yet you deny marriage to the gays who want to be married and remain in a monogamous relationship with all the benefits of marriage - legal and otherwise. The states that allow gay marriages actually have a lower divorce rate. So it doesn't have any negative effect on heterosexual marriages.

[pattygreen 5]

The CBO estimates that $41 billion dollars or much more could be saved if they would just add some tort reform to their plan. But, NO!!! Those lawyers paid for Obama's campaign and those lawyers are the dems biggest supporters. How crooked!!! This is not chump change. (billions) When you have trial lawyers heavily contributing to democrat campaigns, you can't expect those democrats to actually do something for the good of the country by not giving a hoot where their campaign money comes from and going against those lawyers. It sickens me that Obama knows what the congressional budget office estimates as savings with tort reform, yet refuses to even consider it. It's all about what's good for them in the next election, and NOT about the good of the country and the people!

Patients receive only 46% of the money awarded in a malepractice suit, while the attorneys get 56%. Doctors win most of their cases if they go to trial, but they are lengthy, stressful, and distracting and doctors would rather settle out of court than have to take all that time away from their work. This explains why doctors need to order unnecessary tests as a defense in case they are sued. Changes need to be made in this area. Why don't they do it? We all have the answer to that one!

Edited October 11, 2009 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

A recent Amsterdam study found that men in homosexual relationships cheat with an average of eight partners a year. Others have found that the average homosexual has between 100 and 500 sexual partners over his or her lifetime. One study showed that 28 percent have had 1,000 or more sex partners, with another study placing the percentage between 10 and 16 percent.

While adultery is certainly a factor in traditional marriages, it is comparatively rare. In fact, studies on matrimony place the male fidelity rate between 75 and 80 percent and that of females between 85 and 90 percent. The reason is simple: Unlike homosexual relationships, emotional and sexual fidelity within matrimony are inexorably linked and always have been by definition. To extend the concept of marriage to a situation wherein fidelity is not the norm would not only cheapen the institution, but it would have disastrous consequences for children. Simply put, a marriage is not a marriage without total exclusivity.

Why do these men want "marriage" if their concern is not to be committed to one significant other? IMO, It must be all about the sex.

[BJean 16]

patty: "You may feel that the war was unjustified, but when the decision to go to war was made, everyone felt it was the right one."

WRONG!!! Why do you keep repeating that? You've been doing it for months. You are totally wrong!! Lots of people (even people in Congress) thought it was wrong. President Obama knew it was wrong and voted his conscience. Turned out that the man was right. Why do you refuse to give him credit for it?

patty: "When someone can't purchase food, they cancel the cable bill to enable themselves to but food."

Are you THAT out of touch with reality, really? Really? I can't imagine that you mean this. Obviously millions of people cannot afford cable, thanks to the extremely wealthy folks (Ted Turner) who gouged the public in order to reap billions of dollars for providing cable. And you think that people who can't afford food can afford cable and that to eat they just need to cancel cable so they can afford to buy food? What planet are you living on? A very affluent one, I imagine.

Patty: "I believe that an unborn baby has just as much a right to live as any other human being..." A person should take care of themself, and their community and make their own decisions like you said, unless it involves the killing of a seperate person."

Oh but we do agree... the key words being "killing of a separate person" which an embryo is not. An embryo is tissue growing inside a host (woman) and will not survive without a host. It is not a separate human being - it is human tissue which can only become a separate human being when it is separate from its' host.

So it looks like you and I totally agree because we definitely shouldn't be in the business of killing separate human beings.

patty: "Having sex is an action that we can choose to participate in or choose to refrain from. It's just like gluttony."

OMG!! No wonder you think that homosexuality is behavior someone chooses, if you equate it to gluttony.

I could understand if you compared gluttony to sexual addiction, but homosexuality? No way. And eating to stay alive is quite different from gluttony. And homosexuality is quite different from sexual addiction. You might want to go read up on it before you make such ill-informed statements. Although I think you're probably just parrotting what you hear the right wingnuts saying about homosexuality, which is quite discriminatory and ignorant.

patty: "If our government wants to recognize a civil union between 2 men or 2 women, they can call it anything but 'marriage'".

I agree that if the government called the joining of two people for legal purposes, "a civil union" it would be appropriate. But the fact is, the government doesn't call it a civil union - they call it "marriage." So as long as that is the case, homosexuals should not be barred from the governmental right of marriage under the law. You're welcome to bar them from your church and ban them from getting married there, but you have no right to ban them from legal civil unions, even when the government calls it marriage.

patty: "The government shouldn't pay for private schools or unnecessary wars, or any kind of sex education at all.

The Republicans have always wanted the government to subsidize private (religious based) schools. At least since my children were young and attending Catholic schools.

patty: "Parents and parents ONLY should teach their children about sex. This has added to the lack of parental responsibility in this country."

The problem is that generally parents do NOT teach their children about sex. If they did, it wouldn't be necessary for public schools to do it. Ignorance about all things sexual is costing Americans a lot and you should be for sex education because in the long run, it would save the govenrment millions. And as for it contributing to parents lack of responsibility, you're completely wrong. Parents either take responsibility for their children or they don't. You can't blame that on the government!

The fact is, most families find it necessary for both parents to work in order to provide for their families in this country. That lack of supervision and attention to America's children, could fall back on the enormous greed in this country. Greed on the part of corporations who take advanatage of their workers. Do some homework and you'll learn that the upper echelons of corporations are making a killing and their workers have little job security and in many cases are having to do the work of two people and get the pay of one person. The numbers of billionaires has grown by leaps and bounds whereas workers in America have lost their jobs by leaps and bounds. With this kind of stress on parents, our children suffer.

And last but not least, you said that "tax cuts for the rich is not spending" - and that is not the point. TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH IS UNFAIR!!!!! The only possible way that you can justify the wealthy getting more tax breaks than the middle class is if you believe in the "trickle down" theory. And it has been proven, year after year after year, that it does not work to give tax cuts to wealthy in order to help the middle class. Please see my remarks above about wealthy corporate bigwigs NOT helping their workers - and in fact, becoming so greedy that they are MEGA, MEGA wealthy and the middle class has been reduced to our having nearly no huge middle class in America like we used to have.

You might take a look at the Mexican economy (or at least how it used to be there) when you had either the very wealthy or the very poor. And look where that has gotten the non-wealthy people in Mexico... in many cases they either wind up fleeing the country to seek a way to survive, or they become corrupt and commit heinous crimes to survive. I hope you're not advocating the same thing for the United States. Although I do see a whole lot of people moving out of the country to places that are more affordable and in many cases, safer and more pleasant than much of the United States. The really beautiful places to live in the U.S. have become too expensive except for the very wealthy. Is beautiful Connecticut an example of that? Or are the extremely beautiful places in Connecticut affordable for everyone?

And you say that folks can just go take a walk in the forest. Right. We don't need no stinking parks. Let the kids play in the streets or take a walk in the local forest... what the heck are you smoking?

[BJean 16]

As for Tort Reform, it is not the answer to the health care debate in this country. It just will not fix the problem. It is simply clouding the issues that are before Congress. And it is a gambit on the part of insurance companies to get people like you to think that if we only reform our tort process, you won't have to be tapped for tax dollars. Don't buy into it. We may need to do some tort reform, but we'd be stupid to take away individuals' right to sue for malpractice. Needless to say, that's what the insurance companies are lobbying for.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The CBO estimates that $41 billion dollars or much more could be saved if they would just add some tort reform to their plan. But, NO!!! Those lawyers paid for Obama's campaign and those lawyers are the dems biggest supporters. How crooked!!! This is not chump change. (billions) When you have trial lawyers heavily contributing to democrat campaigns, you can't expect those democrats to actually do something for the good of the country by not giving a hoot where their campaign money comes from and going against those lawyers. It sickens me that Obama knows what the congressional budget office estimates as savings with tort reform, yet refuses to even consider it. It's all about what's good for them in the next election, and NOT about the good of the country and the people!

Patients receive only 46% of the money awarded in a malepractice suit, while the attorneys get 56%. Doctors win most of their cases if they go to trial, but they are lengthy, stressful, and distracting and doctors would rather settle out of court than have to take all that time away from their work. This explains why doctors need to order unnecessary tests as a defense in case they are sued. Changes need to be made in this area. Why don't they do it? We all have the answer to that one!

Tort reform only represents about 0.5% of health care costs. And of course the neo conservatives & republicans who don't want healthcare reform only want to discuss this and not the other 95.5% of healthcare costs. It's a red herring, a distraction and a deflection from the real issues.

The healthcare insurance lobbyists spend $1.4 MILLION A DAY !!! to lobby against healthcare reform. They have spent over $586 million since 2007. Just think how many people could get healthcare with that money - people who were denied treatment.

Compare that to trial lawyer lobbyist who in 2008 spent $7671/day to lobby democrats. A drop in the bucket compared to the health insurance industry and their clout.

Trial lawyers do not take malpractice suits unless they think they have a good case. They don't want to waste their time and money on a weak case. Many cases are settled (for the plaintiff) prior to trial. Most that go to trial are found for the defendant because jurors like their doctors and don't want to believe they did anything wrong. If that is the case, then we don't need tort reform because if the doctors win most of the time then no big awards are being paid out. And I don't want a cap on awards when they are paid because some of the medical errors are so egregious that it will take millions and a lifetime of care for that person.

And in many states, when the award exceeds $1 million the attorneys can only receive 10% of the award. In most cases under this amount, the attorney receives between 33% and 40%.

And as far as ordering preventative tests - well, we do preventative maintenance with our cars and homes, so preventative care and tests is something that can and should be practiced as part of healthcare, when appropriate.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

A recent Amsterdam study found that men in homosexual relationships cheat with an average of eight partners a year. Others have found that the average homosexual has between 100 and 500 sexual partners over his or her lifetime. One study showed that 28 percent have had 1,000 or more sex partners, with another study placing the percentage between 10 and 16 percent.

While adultery is certainly a factor in traditional marriages, it is comparatively rare. In fact, studies on matrimony place the male fidelity rate between 75 and 80 percent and that of females between 85 and 90 percent. The reason is simple: Unlike homosexual relationships, emotional and sexual fidelity within matrimony are inexorably linked and always have been by definition. To extend the concept of marriage to a situation wherein fidelity is not the norm would not only cheapen the institution, but it would have disastrous consequences for children. Simply put, a marriage is not a marriage without total exclusivity.

Why do these men want "marriage" if their concern is not to be committed to one significant other? IMO, It must be all about the sex.

Infidelity rare in heterosexual marriages? Are you kidding me? Even your conservative estimate puts it at 1 out of every 4 men and it is a well known fact that people understate their infidelity.

Being in a heterosexual relationship or marriage is one of the most violent place for a woman to be. So far from the June & Ward Cleaver image of the 50's - marriage can be a very violent place, especially for women.

Nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce. It's not like the heterosexuals do a good job with long term committment.

Why do the gay men and women want marriage? For the same reason straight men and women do. And it's not for the sex, because they are already having that outside of marriage. They want the legal power and benefits conferred on married couples. And the status society gives to married people. But to say they want to get married for the sex? That is laughable.