The Republican party has 60% of America's either fooled or divided.

They simplify complex social situations to distort into one issue votes.

They use double speak to frame issues - saying they are for getting government out of your lives but then, for example, apply government heavily through the Bankrupcy laws (government bails out bad decisions by big business). Consider Reagan's bailout of during the Savings and Loan Crisis - (government bails out bad decisions by wealthy investors).

Unfortunately there is no monopoly - Dem's are just as bad on much of this - but on the two LTE Issues - Flag Burning and Faggots - the "R's" hold the full bucket of spittle.

We finally found out the real identity of DeamonDeacon, as he has been harping about gay marriage and flag burning in his posts all week, even when the subject matter had nothing to do with it.

Actually, this couldn't be Deacon, Mr. Grahams LTE stays on a subject and makes a point.

I agree with the LTE. I agree with JDR that we should add Democratic lackeys to the list. Folks, we are being had. Right, Dan?

Yes, well what many fail to realize is that "devisiveness" is on the Republican platform.

And remember, write the two "distinguished" senators from NC regarding their wotes on these issues! Ditsy Dole and Bumbling Burr already have mine, I urge others to let them know their feelings as well!

While I do not vote for a political candidate on one issue, this issue is the final one in deciding how I will vote when DD & BB's re-elections come around, should they seek same. I find it totally appalling that ANYONE would want to rewrite discrimination into the Constitution! What makes it worse is that these two aforementioned are following party politics, not using their God-given mind!

What other useless diatribes and votes can the good people of NC expect from these two "distinguished" senators before they leave office?

Shalom

Can you guys from the N&R or other bloggers please explain to me the column you ran today by someone called Joe??? It is a rambling mess. He makes accusations. based on what I do not know, about those who are seeking equal rights under the law. He also seems to slam women of child bearing age. He calls himself part of an endangered species.

Who on earth decided to print this and why?

'Joe' is Lorraine Ahearn's made-up alter ego. Clue? try to tune into "talk radio host on 66.6 WACK-AM."

You know, I would really like our government to get out of the 'marriage' business altogether. The word itself is imprecise because of the duality of its nature. It is a binding legal contract, and at the same time a moral promise. Sociologists distinguish between a marriage ceremony (under the auspices of a religious authority) and a civil marriage (that is state authorized or a legal commitment). Let religious institutions define marriage with respect to morality while the state can handle the 'legal contract' between consenting persons without moral judgement.

Great editorial! Succinctness is the key, but the message is right on.

Question to all the Rightwingers:

When you look into the eyes of your children or grandchildren, are you really threatened by flag burners and gay weddings? Is that REALLY an important issue that they will have to face?

Honest answers only, please.

Dan, neoCON, Hugh, jcackbar,????

Can you honestly say that Congress is NOT wasting our time and tax dollars debating Gay people getting married and flag burners???
Is it conservative to waste tax money debating "Non-Issues"?

(either pary now, so don't go bringing up Democrats of years ago. Answer honestly.)

Demon,

Although your question wasn't directed to me, I will answer it. Congress is supposed to represent the interests of their constituents. Given that a solid majority of US citizens are against gay marriage (not so solid against a gay marriage amendment), then it is their duty to address the issue. As you know, in many states, voters have already spoken by approving amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage. So, just because you don't think it is important, doesn't mean everyone agrees with that thinking. I wouldn't consider it to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. We are paying them and voted them in to address our interests. Your interests and mine may not be the same but I would hope your interests would be debated and represented by the people you helped put into office.

Personally, when I look at my children and envision a world where everything immoral is accepted as okay in the guise of 'freedom' while everything that this country used to consider moral and righteous is demonized and picked apart by the people who control what is aired on our televisions and taught in our schools......then, yes I am concerned.

Gay marriage isn't the number one concern I have right now about our country. Neither is illegal immigration. Nor the war in Iraq. Nor abortion. Nor flag-burning. Nor terrorist. Nor Terry Grier. Nor Hillary. Nor George.

My number one concern about this country is that Jesus might return at any moment and there are millions upon millions of people who are sinners that have not repented of their sins and found the grace and love of Jesus Christ. None of us is perfect. How many of us can even say we've followed the 10 Commandments flawlessly since birth? I know I've lied, stolen, taken God's name in vain, etc.

So, I agree with many that we need to get off our high horses and stop judging gay people and anyone else for their sins and admit that none of us stands a chance on judgement day without the grace and mercy of God.

It's about illegal immigration, stupid.

People, this is nice discussion, but the reality is that in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into federal law by President Clinton. This federal law provided a federal definition of marriage. Below is a summary of the law.

H.R.3396
Title: To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Barr, Bob [GA-7] (introduced 5/7/1996) Cosponsors (117)
Related Bills: H.RES.474, S.1740, S.1999
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 104-199 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 104-664
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
5/7/1996--Introduced.

Defense of Marriage Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship.

Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) "spouse" as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

5/7/1996 Introduced/originated in House
7/9/1996 Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-664.
7/12/1996 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 342 - 67, 2 Present (Roll No. 316).
9/10/1996 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 85-14. Record Vote No: 280.
9/21/1996 Signed by President.
9/21/1996 Became Public Law No: 104-199 [Text, PDF]

Marriage definition clear-cut
By: Ben Hawken
Issue date: 10/7/04

"There. That's it. The law has been defined. The word has been clarified. Marriage includes "one man and one woman" and that's it. Period.

Does this mean that two consenting adults can't be in love? Does this mean two adults can't live together? Does this mean that two adults can't engage in whatever creative variations of sex they can think of? Of course not.

This does not mean that gay people are doomed to some kind of substandard existence. If homosexuals want their relationships to enjoy legal recognition or if two adults want to inherit things from one another and have the right to visit one another while in the hospital, that's fantastic. Any of these things are OK, but what cannot be done is to call that relationship a "marriage." The definition does not fit the law.

Call it anything you want, but don't call it a marriage.

This issue is not something for un-elected judges to resolve. The matter is already decided. The DOMA does not leave room for interpretation. If a federal law - which was signed by a champion of liberals everywhere - is not enough for some activists, then perhaps it is time for a Constitutional amendment to reaffirm the fact.

It is not anyone's business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But it is the business of the law to ensure that a voluble minority does not impose its own personal morals and fuzzy semantics in ways that compromise the integrity and value of something so simple, and yet so enormously important, as the word "marriage.""

YD,
Thanks for weighing in. Your thoughts are appreciated.
Hugh,
It may be illegal immigration to you and to me, but to George W. Bush it's Gay marriage and flag burning.

Yellowdog, you said more than anyone on all the media and blogs concerning what is wrong in this country and world.
Unfortunately too many do not share your concern.

I could try for hours and fail to deliver a better response than yellowdog's.

Yellowdog,

It is not lost on gay mariage advocates that the point of the consitutional amendment would be a result of the will of the people, expressing their desire for marriage to be reserved to one man, one woman. Such advocates do not want that to happen as they prefer for unelected judges to make law. Why would they want to take the chance that the will of the people would favor their position? Actually, they trust judges more than they do the people.

It amazes me that the "anything-goes" crowd seemingly can't understand that gay marriage just might be a legimate issue for some people. For me, it's just like any other issue: follow the money. I see the gay marraige issue as a grab for government benefits for same-sex partners. I could not possibly care less who is happy when someone says "Honey, I'm home!" If you are employed by a private company that chooses to offer benefits to same-sex partners, great! I only ask how long will it be before same-sex partners are demanding social security benefits, tax deductions based on their "marraige," etc? And please don't come back with you are forced to fund a war you oppose: national defense is the business - the ONLY business - of the federal government.

"When you look into the eyes of your children or grandchildren, are you really threatened by flag burners and gay weddings? Is that REALLY an important issue that they will have to face?"

Actually, all this is designed to keep you and those who think like you whipped into a righteous frenzy, DD. It will keep your mind occupied and out of the way while we deal with the real issues.

"Gay marriage" and abortion are issues that righfully need to be decided by the states, not by the federal legislature, and CERTAINLY not by the federal judiciary.

Bubba,
You seem to be making the argument that it's okay for Massachusetts to set their own law, without federal interference?

As the old bumper sticker says, "The Religious Right Is Neither"

Congress is there to represent the interests of their constituents - at least on issue's they like - 'cause on other slim-majority issues it's "An up Or Down vote" - leaving 49% to eat cheese 'cause you know, Bush won so get over it.

If Jesus returns and sends all the Fag's to hell - isn't that Jesus' decision? Personally I though he was inclusive and wouldn't care about all this. He's probably so pissed and his teachings being used to abuse that he ain't never coming back.

We seem so hung up on the word "marriage" vs. "civil union".

We say follow the money - but if you are NOT employed by a private company that chooses to offer benefits to same-sex partners, the unchosen will just go milk the free emergency room service.

In some scnearios single folks get more social security benefits than those "partnered" - and the marriage tax-penalty gap's been closed, so that's a bogus arguement.

.. and if national defense is the ONLY business - of the federal government, there goes the highways, and the support for your cherished corporations. Include also the judicial systems beyond you local "activist" judges - many who are VOTED in, btw ..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Judicial Selection Today:

Today the combination of schemes used to select judges is almost endless. Almost no two states are alike, and many states employ different methods of selection depending upon the different levels of the judiciary, creating “hybrid” systems of selection. It is possible, however, to classify selection methods in the states. The most frequently used classification differentiates between states that appoint their judges and states that elect their judges. The two groups turn out to be fairly equal in number.

Appointment: Thirty two states and the District of Columbia use nominating commissions to help the governor select state judges. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia use the commission plan to make initial appointments to most or all of their courts and nine others use panels only for interim appointments.

Six states use gubernatorial or legislative appointment without the aid of a nominating commission. In four (California, Maine, New Jersey, and New Hampshire), the governor appoints judges (subject to senatorial onfirmation in Maine and New Jersey, confirmation by a 3-member commission on judicial appointments in California, and approval by an elected council in New Hampshire). In Virginia and South Carolina, the legislature appoints judges (in South Carolina, the legislature does so with the aid of a 10-member judicial merit selection commission that screens candidates and reports to legislators).

In Hawaii, judges themselves appoint their colleagues to preside over limited jurisdiction courts.

Elections: Seven states elect all of their judges in partisan elections, and four states use partisan elections to elect some of their judges. Thirteen states use nonpartisan elections to select all of their judges. An additional eight states use nonpartisan elections to select some of their judges. In total, 31 states choose some, most, or all of their judges using some form of popular election.

Given the “hybrid” systems that appear in many states, it is also helpful to examine how states choose their judges at each level of the judicial system. Again, the states are fairly evenly divided between those that elect and those that appoint their judges.

Supreme Courts: Twenty-one states hold elections for judges serving on courts of last resort: 8 use partisan elections, 13 use nonpartisan elections. In 23 states and the District of Columbia, judges are appointed to the highest court by the governor with the assistance of a judicial nominating commission.

In California, Maine, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, the governor appoints these judges without the aid of a nominating commission.

In South Carolina and Virginia, Supreme Court judges are chosen by the legislature.

Appellate Courts: Of the forty-one states that have intermediate appellate courts, 17 elect appellate judges: 6 states use partisan elections and 11 states use nonpartisan elections. Four states use appointment without a nominating commission (2 allow the governor to appoint judges and 2 allow the legislature to select judges). Twenty states use a judicial nominating commission to help the governor appoint judges to intermediate appellate courts.

Trial Courts: Eight states use partisan elections to select all judges for their general jurisdiction courts and 19 states use nonpartisan elections to do so.

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia use a judicial nominating commission to help the governor appoint all judges for these courts.

Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey allow the governor to appoint without the aid of a judicial nominating commission and South Carolina and Virginia rely on the legislature to appoint these judges.

Three states (Indiana, Kansas, and Missouri) use multiple methods to select judges for general jurisdiction trial courts.

In Indiana, the method of selection for superior court or circuit court judges varies by county. In Kansas, it varies by judicial district (17 districts select district court judges using a nominating commission, while 14 use partisan elections). In Missouri, most circuit court judges are elected in partisan contests, but four counties have adopted the commission plan.

NOTES
This article originally appeared in Volume 64, Number 4, October 1980, pages 176-193, and was updated in August 2004.

http://www.ajs.org/js/berkson_2005.pdf

James,
You make too much sense for those willing to back up their positions with biblical reference. The historical Jesus is the most liberal human to walk the face of the earth. If one believes the "red lettered" words are truly from Jesus, then how does one support Vernon Robinson? How does one support denying health insurance to the poor? How does one justify war?
As in Porgy and Bess, "It ain't necessarily so". I have a friend who is a right wing religious activist, and a member of one of the larger churches in town--charismatic. She has a picture of Ann Coulter framed prominently in her home. How does she reconcile Jesus and Ann Coulter's hate filled rhetoric? I certainly don't think there is a way, but the righties somehow think Jesus was as narrow minded and bigoted as they are......there must be a defect in my bible, because in the beattitudes, Jesus shows himself to be quite the liberal!

Note: On another LTE thread, Ol'Produce has hopped on the "peace train" with Jesus. You can't make this stuff up!

DD, you had me shouting in my computer desk chair! I was even waving my white hanky like the late Vestal Goodman!

DD, seriously, you spoke truth clear, plain, and simple. How anyone could theologically refute what was written/spoken is beyond my reasoning capabilities. I wait to see how others may respond.

Thanks for that post above.

Shalom

Vestal Goodman! What great memories. I loved Howard playing the piano, because he truly looked "Happy" when he'd lift those hands up into the air during a song. I miss the Happy Goodman family and all the real Quartet type groups. Only in the South could you have a Gospel Quartet with five or six folks singing! Some who post here, probably won't get the irony.

My grandparents have on their grave marker, "We Tried To Live Our Faith". That really sums up what true religion should be about, in my opinion.

Flag burning and gay marriage should be non-issues when so much more important things need to be debated in Congress.

The Republicans in Congress have their heads up their asses and I say let's vote 'em all out!

Start by contacting Coble, Burr and Dole. Many of my co-workers and I have done so, and it will be interesting to see what kind of BS they send out in a letter. No doubt it will be the lame reference somehow saying, "activist judges are coming, activist judges are coming....warning, danger, behind the rocks". Remember: There are folks who post here who are actually scared of homosexuals and flag burners, and believe they should be stopped by altering the United States Constitution. As the LTE said they are the real threat. Gotta go. Gotta get showered up for a gay wedding at noon and a flag burning at 4:00.

LOL!

" If one believes the "red lettered" words are truly from Jesus "...............................
dd, i was curious if you could provide the correct rendition of what Jesus actually spoke. although my study bible does not have red letters, it is clearly discernable when He is speaking.
some people believe whatever their heart desires concerning Jesus,i.e. they make Jesus fit their mold and their theology is always correct - while other take bits and pieces from the scripture and use the parts that support their theology and other take the written word of God (i.e. the bible) as the final authority of His revelation to mankind. if i understand you correctly, you are saying that the words in the red letter edition are NOT Jesus's words ? ! one other thought, is only valid that which Jesus spoke or is there also validity in what John spoke or Paul or James ??

World traveler, Darryl has climaxed over your post. Does he even get a peck on the cheek?

Buz,
My point is that if you start a sentence, "Jesus said, "________", then you will not find one sentence that supports the right wingers who claim to be religious. Hate to be the one to tell folks like neoCON, Hugh,Dan, and Mr. P, but Jesus was indisputeably a 'LIB-RUL'!

The hate they proffer for all groups, beginning with the justification of slavery and Jim Crow, was based on scripture from someone other than Jesus.

Before Dan gets on and questions my citing Jim Crow and Slavery as being off the wall, let me put it in context. Religious right wingers have always used the bible to divide people. Only in the past few decades did the Southern Baptists admit that they were wrong to use the bible to exclude black people from worshipping with white folks. So I say, take your piety elsewhere if you are going to soil Jesus'name with excluding homosexuals couples from marriage, as one day, the Baptists and others will have to admit to being wrong AGAIN!
Christians: What part of "Jesus Loves You" do you NOT understand?
It is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, so why is our President bringing it up for debate???????
Because he knows the same people who came out to vote because of the "white hands" commercial, will come out to vote over being threatened by Gay people.

Explanation for Hugh, Dan, neoCON, and Mr. P:

Jesse Helms had a pair of white hands crumbling up a pink slip while the announcer said, "This man lost his job because his employer had to make way for a minority applicant".
It played on the emotions of bigoted white people, and it worked.

Sound like something Jesus would have done?

World traveler, since you are on the Jesus kick,and have ignored my question on the other thread, I'll ask it here:

Why do the leftist hypocrites - and you in particular - offer the "teachings of Jesus" in support of the welfare state and liberal politicians, but turn a blind eye to these 'teachings' when it comes to the murder of the most defenseless among us? Would Jesus approve the practice known as 'partial birth abortion'? Do you think He would approve of this heinous act?
"Sound like something Jesus would do", World traveler?

I only bring up this issue to illustrate the glaring hypocrisy of you preaching about "what Jesus would do". You 'use' Jesus when you think He will advance your lame argument, but rant against the "religious right" for the same thing. This is about as two faced as they come.

neocon, I do not have the mind of Christ nor DD for that matter.

What I feel Jesus would do is put us each in our place for shrinking the message of the GOSPEL down to one specific issue that is dear to any of us.

I believe that what DD has strived to show is that there is a greater thing than just one specific issue. If that is difficult to be seen, then it is the problem of the one looking, not the presenter.

Just musing yet again!

Shalom

Neo:

Jesus would say abortion is to be strongly discouraged and avoided at nearly all times, but there may be rare situations when it must unfortunately be considered, and whatever course is taken, that's between the individual and God the Father.

This is in the Bible ... well it was - in one of the books removed early on by the Organized Church, a.k.a. the Governing authority of the Dark Ages when proclamations were made by mere men.

" I do not have the mind of Christ nor DD for that matter. "............................
i was curious to this statement, i guess i can understand someone making that comment about themselves but i believe it is outrageous that you would judge someone else like that.
" 1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
1Cr 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Cr 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
it seems this individual is saying they ARE a natural man and they cannot discern spiritual things because they DO NOT have the mind of Christ. that is an odd claim to make about yourself when you profess to be saved ? !

neo,
It is sad that you cannot see when irony is being used.
Being the one issue "Christian" that you proclaim to be, this is hot off the wire and illustrates how one issue "Christians" get way off track.
How's old Vernon working out for you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dad turns in son accused in abortion clinic plot
Marylander told police he planned to detonate bomb, shoot doctors
The Associated Press

Updated: 4:39 p.m. ET June 10, 2006
GREENBELT, Md. - The father of a man accused of plotting to bomb an abortion clinic said he felt he had no choice but to contact police about his son's activities.

Robert Weiler Sr. told The Washington Post for an article published Saturday that the decision was agonizing, but that "our concern was just to make sure nobody got hurt."

Weiler, 49, said that like their son, he and his wife, Catherine, oppose abortion, but they do not condone violence.

"It's just something that he believed in very fervently, and in my opinion he went way over the top," the father said. "We became aware of what he was doing, and we felt obligated to contact the police."

He declined to say specifically how they knew about their son's alleged plans.

Robert Weiler Jr., 25, was arrested Thursday and is expected to appear in federal court Monday to face four weapons charges.

The pipe bomb authorities believe Weiler made for an attack at a clinic in the Washington suburb of College Park went off while technicians tried to defuse it Thursday, setting fire to the house where it was stored. No one was hurt.

Weiler planned to use the bomb and a gun to "shoot doctors who provided abortions," according to an affidavit filed Thursday in federal court by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He called the ATF from the rest stop where he was arrested and later confessed to the plot, authorities said.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

neoCON,
Can you see a bigger picture or are you so myopic that you only see what is in front of your face?

I am not out here claiming Jesus supports, as you say, "liberal politicians and the welfare state".

I am saying that Jesus, as evidenced in his sermon on the Mount, gives no quarter to your peculiar political philosophy. Jesus was the original bleeding hands and feet liberal! That's it, pure and simple. What part of "Blessed is the poor in spirit" do you NOT understand?

DD, with the most recent posts, I am not sure very many can see the "bigger picture."

Like "trolls,' they lurk in the wings of cyberspace waiting for some to make comments. Then, like "vultures," they pounce on those posting whom they seek to demonize.

Far too many here only look for key words and phrases. If one does not post those, then that one is not on the "team" of those whom I have compared to "vultures" and "trolls."

I hope that my comparison is taken as such, however, I do have my doubts.

Lastly, neocon, I feel that the rebuke that you gave over my "shouting" comment in regards to a post by DD is greatly off target. Since you do not have my mind, you cannot know of the Spirit which was influencing me. Just as I do not have your mind and cannot know of what s/Spirit which might cause you to share comments such as those which I shared. Becareful of the Spirit which is carried in such low regard.

Musing, yet again.

Shalom

Hey DD, would you (or any others willing) like to join me in protesting at the Coliseum in the next few days? If you or any others wish to join me, just click on my name "icon" and email me for details and information.

Shalom

Darryl,
You're not with Fred Phelps' group are you!

(joking!)

Is this the SBC? If so, I'd stand out front just to see the "Baptist Hair" on parade!

The fact is no one know what Jesus said. Those red quotes in the bible aren't accurate since the books were written decades after Jesus's death.
You guys that believe that stuff make me laugh.

Hey Brian .. There was an actual recording of the stuff Jesus said, but it was on that missing 18 minutes of Nixon tape.

BTW - I'm headed out later today to Mississippi on a Mission Trip to rebuild a Katrina house. In preparation, I had to fill out some paperwork, including name, rank, serial number, medical insurance policy number, and ... some questions about my personal relationship with Jesus.

I answered honestly - I live by His teachings but am wary of living charismatics. My wife asked if these would be "good enough" answers. I told her that was for Jesus and/or God the Father to decide - and so far they've chosen to not strike me dead.

James, you have stated it well. My team/your team. Just what the leaders want.

Have a great trip. Expect to hear all about it when you return.

James,
At least your trip is not a "photo-op"!

Godspeed!

James, I see that of God. You will be held in the Light!

DD, yes, that would be the SBC. Sadly, Fred said he didn't need my "type" helping him protest. Wasn't sure what "type" he was referencing. I could be classified as many different "types!"

DD, seriously, hit me up if you want to join in. Or at the least, let me know you are coming by so I can make a good photo-op since JDR is not getting one!

Shalom

Darryl,
I will be there in spirit. The conservatives of the SBC have to have a 'bogeyman" to go after--women, blacks, homosexuals, Disney and the Masons. Spin that wheel and see who will be next! Why don't they take on deadbeat dads? Why don't they take on pedophilia? Why don't they take up the banner to feed families who choose to have a child rather than to end the pregnancy? Now that would take nuts, and not the kind they have in their membership. No, the SBC is as Dennis Miller might say, a genetic bouliabasse.

James D,
I hope you get to "rock on Trent Lott's front porch" while you are down in Mississippi! While thousands sat on rooftops, that was the profound statement of our President. Make that a photo op for our President.

I believe Historians will concede that Bush 2 overtakes Andrew Johnson and Ulysess Grant for the worst President in history.

"Huff, huff, huff, puff, puff, puff. No answer to my question. This is not surprising, indeed it was expected from the two-faced hypocrite who uses Jesus' name to try to advance his/her lame argument.

World traveler, where did you get the idea that I "proclaimed" to be a christian? I have never made such a claim. I am not a religious person and have stated such several times. The problem is you have placed certain people into your little (very little) box and cannot see outside this box.

Darryl, the world traveler will be there "in spirit"... another example of liberal bleeding heart hogwash that means absoloutely nothing. This is what their (liberals) world revolves around.

"While thousands sat on rooftops".... translation: While thousands who were just too damn stupid and helpless to care for themselves after decades of government nursing sat on rooftops.

neoCON,
I will NEVER have to call you stupid, as you prove it by your daily comments.

As to your "Christian" credentials, you Amen'd all over YellowDog's comments on gay marriage with the fervor of Baptist Preacher. LOL

"You Amen'd all over Yellowdog's comments on gay marriage"...

Not only are you a two faced hypocrite when it comes to religion,but you are also a liar. Show me where I "Amen'd" all over YD's comments. Perhaps this was your "spirit" wandering again?

Oh, one more question and I'll drop this: Was it as good for you as it was for Darryl?

Hmmm DD, was I asleep? druged? what?

I missed something somewhere! Tell me neocon, what was it that DD and I were doing?

Shalom

Darryl, does this mean "one cannot read to comprenhension"? OK, I'll spell it out for you. I mean when you were having an orgasm over the Demented Deacon's post, waving your hankie and clapping, I wanted to know if the world traveler got his cookies too.

Plain enough? And you act as if others are slow to catch on.

Darryl,
neoCON is becoming like Mr. Produce, in that he thinks he's something he's not. In this case, neoCON THINKS he's funny.

neocon, I felt that I knew what was being inferred. I just wanted the printed evidence to substantiate the depths of obscenity some who post here will go.

It is one thing to use profanity and schoolyard name calling. However, neocon, this is a new low in how low some will go.

I still believe that there is that of God in you. My prayer is that one day the Light of God within will be discovered so that these depths may no longer be visited.

Shalom