100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
 I'm helping the folks at Conservapedia rewrite the bible use blue crayon....that helps me   Im pretending to be a christian conservative on there but I am putting secret liberal messages in the new bible we are creating According to them it is already laden with the liberal evil...lol I never thought I would see the day when a conservative would call the bible evil in it's form....lol  I know. Thats what I am saying. These people are (at Conservapedia)admitting that the bible in it original form has liberal messages in it http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project I still say, if the bible is too liberal then you are too conservative and if the bible is too conservative then you are too liberal you don't change the bible to suit your politics you change your politics to suit the bible with the disclaimer that that would only apply to Christians who follow the bible you and I know that but there are people on both sides that think differently. after this there will probably be a group of liberals that rewrite the Bible to suit them. it doesn't end....I just don't have to read it. BUT under the constitution...whether agree or not...they are within their rights 'liberals that rewrite the Bible to suit them...' Now that is funny.  Thou shalt keep your religion to yourself... hey I kinda like it, maybe I'll start the NEW LIBERAL BIBLE... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITs not always about hate or intolerance. I dont think people hate adults but we impose upon them a law that they may only have sex with a certain BIOLIGICAL age of person. I dont think we hate siblings, but we impose a law that they may not marry each other as well. Beliefs are a part of life and not always about religion. Beliefs are what are posted in these forums everyday by spiritual and non spiritual people. IT is because we are in a free country that we can speak and vote on just that what we BELIEVE is best. I think it is far too simplistic to blame any religion for their government or the way the majority chooses to vote on any issue. WE do allow people to sleep with whom they chose. But marriage is more than just who you chose to sleep with it is much more complex issue. I am for equal rights and civil rights, I dont believe that committed people should have any fewer rights than married couples anymore than I believe a woman should have fewer rights than a man. But, due to bioloty, a marital couple is different than a committed couple and a woman is different than a man. I just dont want to confuse those things and toss them aside as irrelevant or hateful or intolerant. WE all are here because of a man and a woman, i dont think the significance of that BIOLOGICAL bond that has been legally recognized as marriage needs to be thinnned out to include other relationship choices just so people can have civil rights. I will fight for partners of every type to have equal rights to marital partners, but not for marital partners to be defined as partners of every type. Your belief and therefore you should not marry a woman but you should not impose that belief on others who do not believe that way, right? You keep saying it is unnatural. That is degrading to the couples who are not man and woman.  Mami, I am not saying anything about natural or unnatural, I am talking about BIOLOGY. What makes some men and some women, some tall and some short,,biology. I am not degrading anyone as I have said I do believe that couples of all sorts should have the RIGHTS a marital couple does. I am defending the definition of the MARRIAGE COUPLE. Just like I wouldnt support a push to start calling female tomboys males because they do the same things guys do..biologically, they are still female. Dont think I can explain this any further. My loved one is gay, I also have a loved one who runs porn, as a christian, I dont agree with either thing BUT as a christian I still love them both and see them as no less than I because a true christian knows we all fall short ( I have shortcomings too). I just dont think people should have to ignore those things that are important to them to avoid being labeled as bigot. Nowhere have I said homosexuals are unnatural or less than anyone else. I am not hateful, fearful , or intolerant of any people, whatever sexual or intimate relationships they participate in. IT would not make sense to be. I dont hate those who lie, or who say hurtful things, I dont hate those who commit adultery, I dont hate those who covet. All these things are shortcomings but make noone any less human. I see promiscuity, adultery, and homosexual LIFESTYLES as shortcomings but the people involved in them are no better or worse than I am. WE are all human but we do have to agree upon some standards, I am sorry that you see that as a bad thing or something Christians have imposed. and , like a TRUE christian,,, I still love ya dragon,,,lol I may be homosexual but I damn well am 'NOT' a shortcoming because your religion says so. And I really dislike when so called well meaning folks equate us with thieves and adulterers and murderers and bestiality and on an on. You see marriage as defined one way. You don't want us to be in that same category because we don't live up to your definition of a marital couple? You say how much you love as a Christian and still insult us at the very same time. I don't think it's intentional, but it sure it upsetting. Thankfully I know not all Christians believe this, but the majority do, they they are the ones I am most at issue with. And the minority that dont' think this way rarely stand up when they should or could, that is why were are still dealing with this after so many many many decades. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you are right, I too am defensive about the dumb a$$ things people accuse gays of, but gays aren't trying to convert the whole damn world. bu neither are 90% of the Christians. Most of em live their lives quietly and allow everyone else to live theirs quietly but if you take the few fundamentalist fascist types and extend that to represent all of Christanity it's like saying Bruno represents all gays Again I am 'not' talking about the so called 90% that live their lives quietly, several of which are friends, family members and acquaintances. There are far more fundamentalists that you might realize, and they are the ones with political pull, and the ones that concern me. Again, I don't care what people believe privatly, I just don't want to see it pushed so far into government it controls everyone. and to ignore the influence already in government as we speak tells me that not enough people are concerned about what it going on. I hope I am wrong about that, frankly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigot Noun a person who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race [Old French] bigoted adj bigotry n I know the freaking definition of Bigot. I'm intolerant of 'control freaks', and ignorance, Rose, religion can't do a damn thing with out people to manipulate it. And religious people tend to only know what they are told from their individual churches, which is'nt much when it comes to politics. I have no issue with them other than the fact that they rarely question their authority figures in the church, and rarely question the faith itself. These folks won't be the ones to create a theocracy in our government or the world, so they are hardly the people I would be referring to. But if it makes you feel good to call me a bigot, knock yourself out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because some in here don't agree with the religion doesn't make the religion right or wrong for everyone. if you don't like...then stay away from it. I see people whining about the Christians telling them they are wrong for not believing and shoving it down their throats...but doing the same thing to Christians doesn't make these people any better than what they whine about. the answer is very simple....don't buy the Bible When christians quite whining that their god is being removed from everything while they are trying to put it into everything we might not have it to deal with. What's simple is respect the seperation of church and state. am I whining???? I don't think so. the bigotry against ALL Christians is astounding at times...just as it is when some Christians do it to others You are a bit defensive, when no one is talking about all christians. You know who I am talking about when I talk about it. Hell most christians don't even have a clue what the leaders of their own faith are up to. Gives new meaning to blind faith. Get the christian fundementalists out of the republican party, you'll see a big change. from all of the offensive posts I've seen you post about Christians...not some but as a generalizing...yes I'm defensive and you know I get defensive (which is probably why you post it) just as you get defensive when people are offensive and generalizing all gays. NOT ALL denominations have leaders like you seem to think we do not to mention the non-denominal churches out there you are a bigot...plain and simple and not a very liberal attitude I was waiting for you to get around to calling me a bigot, Rose. You know damn well what I am talking about when I talk about the influence of christianity. It doesn't take all denominations to influence government and christianity around the world. there are actually a few that are fighting the fundementalist control but they aren't enough to change it. The last sentence didn't make sense so I can't comment on it. Glad you admitted to being defensive though. And you are right, I too am defensive about the dumb a$$ things people accuse gays of, but gays aren't trying to convert the whole damn world. We can't seem to discuss the ugly side of christianity with out you saying it's not all this or all that. Of course it's not all, but it's significant and it's in high places. Those with out political power can't do much of anything to change it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because some in here don't agree with the religion doesn't make the religion right or wrong for everyone. if you don't like...then stay away from it. I see people whining about the Christians telling them they are wrong for not believing and shoving it down their throats...but doing the same thing to Christians doesn't make these people any better than what they whine about. the answer is very simple....don't buy the Bible When christians quite whining that their god is being removed from everything while they are trying to put it into everything we might not have it to deal with. What's simple is respect the seperation of church and state. am I whining???? I don't think so. the bigotry against ALL Christians is astounding at times...just as it is when some Christians do it to others You are a bit defensive, when no one is talking about all christians. You know who I am talking about when I talk about it. Hell most christians don't even have a clue what the leaders of their own faith are up to. Gives new meaning to blind faith. Get the christian fundementalists out of the republican party, you'll see a big change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because some in here don't agree with the religion doesn't make the religion right or wrong for everyone. if you don't like...then stay away from it. I see people whining about the Christians telling them they are wrong for not believing and shoving it down their throats...but doing the same thing to Christians doesn't make these people any better than what they whine about. the answer is very simple....don't buy the Bible When christians quite whining that their god is being removed from everything while they are trying to put it into everything we might not have it to deal with. What's simple is respect the seperation of church and state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
I want these work weeks!
|
|
Since the House returned for its fall session on Sept. 8, it has stuck around to vote on a Friday just once: to approve a 5.8 percent increase in Congress’s own budget.
I'd like to know why they didn't vote against getting a freaking increase when the rest of the country has to deal with no raises and less money to spend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Conservapedia is the site they are rewriting the bible on If anyone else wants to participate I have to wonder if the Bible had just been dug up yesterday would anyone take it seriously at all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the reason we have oil right now is because millenia ago the atmosphere spiked with CO2. the plants and especially the algae and plankton in the oceans thrived and stored all of that carbon. then pressure and heat turned the carbon into coal and oil problem is that the plant life stored that carbon over several hundred thousand years but by burning it at the rate we do, we are releasing that carbon back in to the atmosphere over a period of a hundred years I fully expect that the global warming (indisputable) is prolly man made, even though as they say one volcano will release a thousand times more carbon that the total of the history of mankind problem is unless we can kill of about half the human race, it isnt gonna change. we can convert to a totally green technology and still wont affect the atmosphere for a hundred years. There is a lag time between carbon levels in the atmosphere and the effects we have on it. What we are seeing now is the result of the 60's and 70's pollution levels. The onus on mankind isnt so much to try and modify the climate systems (we always screw stuff like that up) but to adapt to the changing climate and still learn how to thrive as a species in the new climate My dad who is a geologist says the planet has cycles. We are probably in a warming cycle. The question is whether we are making it worse with our poisoning of planet. I agree with that. The planet is not static. It is ALWAYS cooling or warming. we tend to see the state of the planet as a snapshot frozen in time but it is always changing it might the natural progression as a result of coming out of the last ice age. And in a thousand/ten thousand/100 thousand years the ice age will prolly come back we might be hastening it. But I still think that the root cause is too many people. The best thing that could happen to the planet and the human race would be a natural disater to wipe out about half of the the human herd That is probably what it is going to take because we dont' seem to be smart enough to see what population does to resources, and we fuss about the idea of being more responsible in the amount of children we produce. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels. "I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week. Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth. Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity. In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2. Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html Makes you wonder what exactly is going on. You have scientist on both sides telling us different things. Guess it depends on who's pockets they are in. All though it seems more and more are going against the whole global warming thing, or climate change as they are calling it now. What ever happen to the hole in the ozone haven't heard of that in years. Guess it's not the flavor of the day. Montana's Sen. Max Baucus? interesting considering he is the big wig in the health care thing. Oh ya I sure trust anything he backs with the amount of money he has gotten from the insurance industry. They say follow the money, maybe that is our only way to find out who is using what to further their own agenda. It all ticks me off royally. Some one knows the truth. But for people who don't have a damn clue to just say global warming is bunk is so irresponsible it's not funny. I'm no scientist, but I love the environment. I sure would not want to be the cause of ruining it for future generations because I backed corporations that could care less what happens to the beauty around us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they are true liberals though and not liberal when it's convenient. But personally..I'm happy being conservative myself but liberal minded enough to know people are different and I won't have a government taking that away from me How is someone liberal when convenient. I dare say that folks here that dislike any thing liberal would be caught dead being liberal when convenient, though I am not saying it can't happen. I just can't think of a reason someone would do that.  That's an answer? yep. I've explained it MANY times in past threads etc. but even according to the definition given on the first page of this thread...I have seen many (in here and in life) that call themselves liberals that are nothing like that definition. that is what I call a convenient liberal. they are liberal as long as it is what they believe I'm not following you here. There are conservatives running around in Mingle calling themselves liberals? you are following me. You know exactly what I said. but to clarify more...I'm talking about the people calling themselves liberals that aren't IMO If I knew what you were talking about I would not have asked. Can you give me an example of someone being liberal when they are not? I know you are not referring to me because I know I am a liberal. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they are true liberals though and not liberal when it's convenient. But personally..I'm happy being conservative myself but liberal minded enough to know people are different and I won't have a government taking that away from me How is someone liberal when convenient. I dare say that folks here that dislike any thing liberal would be caught dead being liberal when convenient, though I am not saying it can't happen. I just can't think of a reason someone would do that. That's an answer? yep. I've explained it MANY times in past threads etc. but even according to the definition given on the first page of this thread...I have seen many (in here and in life) that call themselves liberals that are nothing like that definition. that is what I call a convenient liberal. they are liberal as long as it is what they believe I'm not following you here. There are conservatives running around in Mingle calling themselves liberals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boo2u
on
Wed 10/07/09 07:24 PM
|
|
yet 6 more reasons why I'm a vegetarian...  I just heard yesterday about the levels of ecoli and our vegetable sources, so you can't feel safe there either unfortunately. When it comes to money you can't trust any food source. We get all our foods from so many different sources they are finding it diffucult to oversee. yep , no guarantees there either I know. I do grow my own garden each summer and freeze what I can. I feel much better than when I ate meat several years ago. And my weight maintains itself with my vegetarian diet. So ya know, the lesser of two evils..so to speak. I do eat meat now and then on average a couple of times a month. When I heard the report yesterday about leafy greens and other produce I though, geezuz what the heck can we eat anymore that isnt' a freaking risk. I just saw and article in google about protecting your own garden from ecoli. Might be an interesting read if you grow your own. I'm going to have a look even though I have yet to really get going with growing my own because a neighbor does and I get most of my vegies from him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they are true liberals though and not liberal when it's convenient. But personally..I'm happy being conservative myself but liberal minded enough to know people are different and I won't have a government taking that away from me How is someone liberal when convenient. I dare say that folks here that dislike any thing liberal would be caught dead being liberal when convenient, though I am not saying it can't happen. I just can't think of a reason someone would do that. That's an answer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they are true liberals though and not liberal when it's convenient. But personally..I'm happy being conservative myself but liberal minded enough to know people are different and I won't have a government taking that away from me How is someone liberal when convenient. I dare say that folks here that dislike any thing liberal would be caught dead being liberal when convenient, though I am not saying it can't happen. I just can't think of a reason someone would do that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet 6 more reasons why I'm a vegetarian... I just heard yesterday about the levels of ecoli and our vegetable sources, so you can't feel safe there either unfortunately. When it comes to money you can't trust any food source. We get all our foods from so many different sources they are finding it diffucult to oversee. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraqis are better off under our occupation? Not everyone would agree. This is pretty disturbing....
The Ugly Truth - The Ugly American "In our sterilized world, with our censored news we rarely see the ugly side of what we are responsible for... remember... our tax dollars are paying for this nightmare." This video contains disturbing scenes of American troops sadistically taunting Iraqi children and randomly throwing grenades at sheep herders . http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20077.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks I love this type of story, it's amazing what we can accomplish if we want to, as humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt anything I'm going to show you is going to change your mind. However, you can watch her interview with Katie Couric if you'd like. In my opinion, it does not show her as being vice president material. Seen it. I think it shows someone who felt she was being put into a corner with unfair interviewing tactics. Was Obama asked what magazines and newspapers he reads? I think relying on a single interview as an impression that someone is stupid seems a bit ungainly. Obama is ten months into his presidency and shows absolutely no understanding of how economics work from a Keysian or Austrian school and I don't call him stupid. That's 10 months of evidence. I call him crooked and question his motives, but I wouldn't call him stupid. Even though he is the first president who has refused to release his college grades...just saying... The difference is that Obama would have handled it with far more grace, instead Palin had to act like the poor little martyred victim. Oh they were so mean to me. Why not just say I prefer not to answer the damn question. I might have had more respect for her than the lame a$$ answers she gave. She was answered very direct and simple questions and couldn't answer them, period. She had many interviews, not just that one, she also said many many things on the campaign trail. Do you assume liberals didn't watch all the campaigns? Or all the interviews. Your being asked to google, we already know what she has said. You already know our opinion of her, so why bait us, just go do your own research. Please don't pretend you aren't calling Obama stupid because you are not using the specific word. You don't like Obama, we don't like Palin, not biggy, it's to be expected. And who the heck are you to call anyone dishonest when you obviously are not aware of all the things she has said. I don't think she's stupid at all, I do however think the way she handled herself was pretty lame, and I do think she's a manipulative fundementalist right winger, who learned pretty quickly that you can say almost anything you want, lie or not and make more money spewing BS than actually sticking to a job. Really, I respect your P.O.V on everything but, since we are speaking "honest" (tongue and cheek) I'd say that even you must admit that Palin got trashed badly through out this campaign and that there was never any reason in the world to bring her children into it either. And you have to also admit that she was held back by the McCain people sooo much that people started to think that she had no creditablity bc of the McCain camp. That's who I actually blame and not so much the liberal media. McCain basically spoon fed them by refusing to let her go. And being fair here...as I have mention in other posts that she didn't answer the most direct of question wisely.And it did make her look like a fool whether if it was edited or not there was no excuses for answering some question the way that she did. Ok I can accept that point of view even if there are things I disagree with. Such as, her being trashed. Taking on Palin was an direct insult to the women that voted for Clinton. Mccain thought that we would be so stupid that we would take a woman no matter how we got one as long as women were represented. BS. Typical old man out of touch thinking. Second, she got bashed because of the lame things she said when she was given free run. They held her back because she embarrassed those behind the campaign. I watched McCain's body language at one interview and I swear if they have been alone, he would have read her the riot act for the dumb *** things she said right in front of him. From lipstick on a pig to the dumber things she just let rip thinking the only people paying attention where the fringe in her own base. That's not a particularly bright. Palin and Joe the plumber aren't doing the republicans a favor, they are just making them look more like the radicals they have become. The only response that I can reply with...actually more than 1 Palin is the only person that can bring a crowd close to whatever obama can do on a bad day. And IF it weren't for Palin NOBODY would have shown up to the rallies for McCain...he was a boring old fart. On top of that she brought in alot of money for the republican party. Like it or not she is a cash cow for the party so that is whyI am confussed as to why in the world would ANY republican politician would move against her. Even run against her would be damaging bc she does have a following. Also, please keep in mind that obama was running for president since 07' I believe and Palin only had a couple of months. Well considering the damage she did to McCain in that short period, it's a damn good thing she didnt have more time. As for him being boring, gotta give ya that one, he was truely boring, but she didn't do him any favors. She brought the far right nutcases and the fringe out in number, yes, but that is what was their downfall. people were so fired up it didn't matter if the things she said were out and out lies, she represented the nutcases and those who wanted their power to continue. The crazies made for some entertainment but they also made the party look like mean spirited buttheads out to win at any cost. That is why my republican friends voted for Obama. They thought McCain has snapped. Palin appealed to the fundementalist crazies, and all the rest that didn't like Obama for whatever other reasons. She brought down the McCain campaign faster than McCain would have done it alone. I watched every thing non stop of 2 years, there wasn't much I didn't see happening. Hell I didn't watch anything else on tv for those two years. Bottom Line, Palin is clever and manipulative, and frankly using the republican base to rack it in. If I were a republican that would piss me off. Ok...just curious, did you have the t.v shut off for 2yrs? Bc, I don't know what campaign that you were watching. I think that I was more than reasonable with my outlook on both candidates and your POV was all leaning left. You must be on soemthing to think that the liberals/democrats are all nice and dandy bc IF you happen to remember the Democrat conventions you saw the police everywhere when they were breaking window and creating chaos OR do you remember the "Truth Squad" OR I could go all day with obama and ACORN as well. Palin didn't destroy anything for McCain. McCain destroyed himself by not utilizing Palin in a better way. How many times was Biden told to STFU and he kept on spouting crap that didn't make sense.You mentioned "clever and manipulative"...LMAO! You must be speaking about the Messiah himself, Mr.obama bc he is the one with how many books again? None the less at what age,lol? Or was it obama that had 120 plus No Votes, or was he the guy that had to mention his poor background,white mother, the father that left him, the aunt hiding out in a project in Brooklyn,Ny and his boo-hoo up bringing. College, hmmm...are there even transcripts that he did anything when he was there except for what he said that he did and there is no proof what so ever. Was it the gay activtist that went into a church to push their agenda but meanwhile you have the nerve to say that the republicans are the crazies...LMAO!!! Get your story straight before approaching me with nonsense. The people on the left that didn't like Obama didn't have to do anything really (though they did their share), the right was doing it for them, frankly. I never said that the republicans were the only crazies. If you didn't know about Obama's education you obviously didn't bother looking either. But hey I am not going to spend hours arguing with you. Our observations are in conflict, period. I don't know what the hell your talking about with the gay activist thing. 'Get your story straight before approaching me with nonsense.' My observation is my story, if you don't like it, that is your problem, no? Unless you can prove that your observation is the correct one, I think we might have a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
